<i>&gt; This only really shows that Jessica (assuming your implication of who the primary judge was in that instance) may also advocate for particular founders, not just veto some.</i><p>Unless you are going to accept everybody or reject everybody, there are going to be valid reasons to advocate for some founders and advocate against others. I don&#x27;t understand why you insist on focusing on the latter but ignore the former.<p><i>&gt; Then lady justice should not make a decision.</i><p>So you only make decisions when you have a logical argument that justifies a particular choice? You must lead a very...interesting life.<p>Also, your use of the word &quot;justice&quot; is not, um, justified. Whether or not someone gets funded by YC is not a matter of justice. Nobody has a right to YC funding.<p><i>&gt; What theory allows you to accurately predict what I will do, purely based on your observation of me, or even under cursory verbal examination? I don&#x27;t think that there is one.</i><p>You&#x27;re right; there isn&#x27;t one. So what? Do you have a theory that allows you to accurately predict how a food you&#x27;ve never tasted before will taste to you? How a color or material you&#x27;ve never seen before will look to you? How an experience you&#x27;ve never had before will feel? Yet somehow you manage to taste new foods, see new colors and materials, and have new experiences.<p>You don&#x27;t need a theory of how something works in order to do it. People accurately threw spears long, long before anyone discovered Newtonian physics. People ate nutritious food and got energy from it long, long before anyone had a theory of how metabolism works. And people make accurate judgments about other people even though nobody has any very good theories of how the human mind works.<p><i>&gt; That people in this thread believe that there could be one is strange.</i><p>That you believe that you need logical arguments and theories in order to do anything at all is strange.