I mean, if everyone's copying them, it's hard to argue that they haven't hit on something that works better than the known alternatives.
Have people tried remote accelerators? If they're viable and competitive then they should have no problem flourishing, especially given the apparent number of WFH diehards. Honestly I wouldn't bet on it.
What if you want to be an actor, or a comic, or a filmmaker? You basically have to move to LA or NY. There are lots of opportunities that require very large commitments. You can think of your commitments, hobbies, routines, each on average occupying a certain percentage of your day. Having a kid is a huge one. Doing a hustle growth startup is another. Is it really reasonable to try and do both at the same time? One or both will suffer.
> it's hard to argue that they haven't hit on something that works better than the known alternatives.
Does it work better though? Barring some statistical outliers such as unicorns, VC backed startups from accelerators don’t measurably do better at all for the founders.
> What if you want to be an actor, or a comic, or a filmmaker? You basically have to move to LA or NY.
So, actors only work in […checks notes…] LA or NY?
This kind of egregious reductionism as support for the idea that a startup can only be successful if you dedicate your entire life to it to the exclusion of literally everything else (family, hobbies, “routines” - whatever that may mean) is not giving me the feeling that you are interested in a meaningful discussion, this is more like reddit point-scoring, which is not interesting, so I’m leaving it at this.
What is the meaningful distinction between "many accelerators globally follow the YC template" and "everyone's copying them"?
Does it work better though? Barring some statistical outliers such as unicorns, VC backed startups from accelerators don’t measurably do better at all for the founders.
Ok, then what's the problem? Just don't do it, easy. You started this off by lamenting that they ask for too much of a commitment, now you're saying that they don't really add value. I'm not sure what argument you're driving at.
"Egregious reductionism"? Who's point-scoring again? That sentiment about e.g. Hollywood is pretty widespread conventional wisdom. Can you make it elsewhere, sure, but that's beside the point. My point is that there are certain jobs and opportunities that require a lot of commitment and giving up of other things, and that closes them off to a lot of people, but that's ok. You've avoided making any argument against that by nitpicking and shifting your argument.
Nobody is stopping anybody from living a family life in the suburbs and starting a VC backed startup in their spare time. Be a rebel, buck the trend, prove 'em wrong! But maybe understand that there may be some truth to the idea that you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in an already tough environment, and that getting a bunch of people together in the same room and grinding actually does have value, it's not just toxic YC bro culture or whatever.
exclusion of literally everything else (family, hobbies, “routines” - whatever that may mean)
Routines are things like brushing your teeth, showering, sleeping; eating may even be considered a routine. You have a very real time budget you have to balance. You seem unwilling to accept this. Go ahead, do it all, I wish you luck!
Have people tried remote accelerators? If they're viable and competitive then they should have no problem flourishing, especially given the apparent number of WFH diehards. Honestly I wouldn't bet on it.
What if you want to be an actor, or a comic, or a filmmaker? You basically have to move to LA or NY. There are lots of opportunities that require very large commitments. You can think of your commitments, hobbies, routines, each on average occupying a certain percentage of your day. Having a kid is a huge one. Doing a hustle growth startup is another. Is it really reasonable to try and do both at the same time? One or both will suffer.