<i>&gt; The essay treats Jessica as fail-proof.</i><p>I don&#x27;t see that at all. It says she contributed something important to the YC evaluation process that none of the other founders could. It doesn&#x27;t say she never made any mistakes. Nor does it say that her input was the determining factor in every choice. I think you are reading things into the article that aren&#x27;t there.<p><i>&gt; It&#x27;s not my use of justice.</i><p>You didn&#x27;t use the word first, but you are treating YC&#x27;s process as though the word was appropriate. See below.<p><i>&gt; If you wish to convict someone a la the lady of justice, then yes, I do believe you need logical arguments and theories before you can do anything (in regards to punishment).</i><p>But if you believe the justice analogy is &quot;inept&quot; (your word), why would you buy into someone else&#x27;s interpretation of YC rejecting an applicant as &quot;punishment&quot;? It&#x27;s not. As I said before, nobody has a right to YC funding. Their money, their choice. They don&#x27;t have to give a logical reason; they don&#x27;t have to give a reason at all. They could choose among applicants by throwing darts, and nobody would have any right to complain.<p>Of course, choosing by throwing darts wouldn&#x27;t work well, which is why YC doesn&#x27;t do it. But what they do do, including the &quot;Social Radar&quot;, does appear to work well, even if no one can construct a logical argument for why it does. Since it&#x27;s their money, and it&#x27;s working well for them, nobody else has any right to complain that they&#x27;re being &quot;punished&quot; if YC rejects them. They certainly don&#x27;t have a right to do so on the basis that there isn&#x27;t a logical argument backing up YC&#x27;s choices.