Over here the fans would be singing "You're getting sacked in the morning" halfway through that first season.
I guess not having relegation makes things slightly less ruthless for you.
is there a tech equivalent? like you do a crappy job with your series A on purpose which helps you get a better series B. although there is the notion of a big round of layoffs to secure further investment
I am so glad the proposed "European super league" was killed off so hard, so that we don't get a franchise model, it produces so many adverse incentives.
That would put a fire under some asses!
plus, what is an NFL fan going to do, stop watching football? hahahahahaha
The Haslams? Yeah, they should really sell the team, but I figure in about 10-15 years, they'll move it out of Cleveland.
Former Seahawks fan here, it's easier than you think. (It wasn't their record, I stuck with them through the 90s after all, it was realizing what CTE meant for the players).
The owner of the Cleveland Browns uses the team to generate more revenue. For NFL teams, performance has little to do with their value or ability to generate additional revenue.
There is no strong financial incentive to win in the NFL, aside from the owner's ego. The Browns' owner's ego is driven by money, and the result shows on the field.
Like an allegory for performative capitalism in America. Profit and quality completely decoupled in the wake of market capture (rent seeking).
But if they don't care about winning, why bother getting good draft picks?
The draft pick is itself a commodity that can be traded*, so by losing they get a premium commodity, that they can sell on, and by selling their picks they ensure that they continue to lose to get the valuable commodity.
They even lobbied to tweak rules around selling draft picks: https://www.reuters.com/sports/browns-ask-nfl-allow-draft-pi...
* This seems completely absurd to me, but perhaps there would just be backroom deals otherwise, and having it sanctioned brings it into the light?
I do find the model European Football (soccer) using promotion and relegation to be much more interesting, both from the standpoint of culling out perennially hopeless teams from top-tier competition, and for having a place for people to play who aren't absolute superstars.
Regardless, a coach is given some leeway their first season. They were coming off a 3-13 season, so 1-15 isn't that much of a drop. Jackson could make the case that he needed another season to build his ideal roster.
Then after going 0-16, they were on track to get Mayfield. He could have made the case that if he can't win with Mayfield, then maybe he just can't win.
Then he didn't win with Mayfield.
And once it gets out that it’s a selection criteria it gets gamed to hell and back.
sounds like how the ufc does it
Yes actually
Needless to say they didn’t like when I said this was a worthless metric and we needed to be using something like “working policies” or “time saved training”
I just wanted to build a good product but unfortunately good products are not relevant
There were no complementary workflows or infrastructure or anything.
It was explicitly a move to try to counter epic’s positioning and internally it was very obviously a JR versus Tim pissing contest (and JR was the only one in the contest because Tim didn’t give a fuck about Unity)
I believe that is how they made the final decision on Watson over Mayfield. Oh, wait, I don't think anything can explain that decision.
Also from Cleveland.
Go Guardians! Go Cavs!
The answer is right there in front of your face. Say it with me: VCs are morons. VCs are morons. VCs are morons. Just because someone is rich, you think that means they have any clue what they're doing?
and it's not just ZIRP. every recent IPO or liquidity event creates literally 500 more of these guys.
Hold up — one can be mature without any of those things, but cars are especially optional.
These people go to the extreme and feel they have to outdo each other in an arms race to win whatever category it is today.
You can have extreme ambitions without being a moron. It's possible for someone to be empathetic, but also really driven. The problem is that they are locked in a downward spiral and they can't possibly be vulnerable. It's only when they run out of money, or some other extreme event occurs that they change tack. That's moronic, especially when the outcomes are predictable.
There is a lot to be said about SV culture and the people that surround these VCs. A lot of people love these environments and more than tolerate the environment these VC folks create. It's hardly a new phenomenon.
This is attributable to survivorship bias. Poor people who make bad decisions either die in a gutter or die in a cell. Rich people who make bad decisions get golden parachutes and fail upward ad infinitum.
> If you think you are smarter because you are a "normal person" then I think you need to consider that everyone is dumber then they realize.
Firstly, to paraphrase Socrates, I fully own that I'm a dumbass, secondly the events of the past decade made it starkly clear that, yes, everyone is dumber than they realize, and now I'm forced to realize it, too.
Using things like github stars is clearly stupid, but not in the way you're suggesting. They're using the GH stars as a proxy metric for "someone else will come along and give money bags to this person later, so I should get in early so I can take that money eventually."
They're operating on metric of success which is about influence and charisma and connectedness, not revenue or technical excellence.
Again, VCs don't care if you'll make a profitable business some day. They're just interested in if someone else will come along and pay out giant bags of cash for it later in a liquidity event. If they get even one of those successes, all the stupid GH star watching pays off.
Here's another way of framing it: any harms from the false positives around "He has a lot of GH stars" or "He went to Stanford" or "I know his father at the country club" are more than mitigated by the one exit in 1000 that makes a bunch of people filthy rich.
We shouldn't expect VCs to be something they're not. But we are missing something inbetween VCs and "self financing" and "bootstrapping"
And if that's true, they should be slapped, hard. They're no longer performing a socially useful function, and and have degraded towards pure financialization. Some middleman between fools and their money.
As much as I don't like Altman, VC should be pumping money into startups like Helios--companies pursuing cutting-edge technology that could totally fail (yes, that's an organic em-dash).
I do think that ZiRP distorted things extremely badly. There's an entire generation in this software industry that lives around the business-culture expectations set during that time which as far as I could see basically amounted to "I build Uber but for X" (where X is some new business domain).
Perhaps after a bit of a painful interregnum things will be a bit different now that rates are higher and risk along with it.
Also anybody can throw a SaaS together in a few days now. Separating the wheat from the chaff in the next few years will be... interesting.
That's a extremely strong statement, and may only be true in libertarian-land, where pure capitalism is a god to be worshiped and "good" has been redefined to be "whatever the unregulated free market does."
But in the real world, capitalism is a tool to perform socially useful functions (see the marketing about how it was better able to do that than Soviet central planning). When it fails, it should be patched by regulation (and often is) to push participants into socially useful actions, or at least discourage socially harmful ones.
I didn't say I agree with it.
You said:
>>>> I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody...
I just made a such an argument, and the fact that I'm not alone can be inferred from the actions of the government in regulating capitalism. Also, if you read the newspaper, it's fairly frequent to see an op-ed decrying some particular market entity, and advocating for something to stop what they're doing.
Also you'll note I wasn't arguing "everyone at all times needs to perform a socially-useful function," but rather "we've identified a particular important area where the social utility is too low, lets do something about that problem."
Why would I want to do that? I think they should be disciplined until the perform a more socially useful function. Competing with them is an entirely different thing that's unlikely to accomplish that goal.
This was, is, and always will be a most braindead response in such conversations. I bet you even use the word entrepreneur unironically.
Spoiler alert: commercial fusion power may not be practical at all, but if it is, the timescales to delivery are measured in numbers closer to centuries than decades. Don’t fall for the hype generated to sucker those VCs you’re talking about.
I actually don't care that much about the specifics, just the general direction: pumping money into developing technology that doesn't exist, instead of looking to flip yet another software startup where GitHub stars would matter.
If you mentally say “well 90% fail so I’ll just throw in this dog shit to see what happens” then you increase the failure rate.
Another thing I was thinking as I was re-reading this thread is that for some VCs the fact that you can game your GH star count might in fact read as a positive signal. It shows you're willing able to play a kind of vicious PR game to get popularity.
Again, VCs not interested in pure technical excellence or geek "cred". They likely want you if you're the kind of person who can stand in front of a room and puff yourself up and make yourself look more important than you are, and frankly "acquiring" GH stars might just be part of that.
speak for yourself, I guess? Some people know things in many areas. But even if they are not experts outside of their areas of expertise, they may recognize their limitations in other areas and thus avoid making costly mistakes. This may even be the rule for adults, rather than the exception.
VCs themselves probably suffer from chronic overestimation of their own intelligence, but there just aren't many good signals at the stage of companies they're looking at. No customers, no revenue; often just an idea and hopefully a prototype. GitHub stars are as good of a signal as letters of intent, which is to say: a bad signal, but at least a signal. Other than that, they have to just evaluate what the founders are telling them (generally unrealistically optimistic at best) and whatever market research they can do (which is hard enough for the founders to do for their own product; image doing this for a dozen different companies every day).
Of course GitHub stars are a terrible signal, but the bar for signal quality is just really low.
Perhaps you don't owe morons, VCs, or rich people better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
The entire game of startup investing is to identify breakout companies early. Social proof (when valid, not faked) of interest is one of the strongest signals of product market fit.
If a product has a lot of attention (users, headlines, stars, downloads, DAU) that’s a signal that it could also have a lot of customers some day. This is also why all of those metrics are targets for manipulation.
> This would be like an NFL team drafting a quarterback based on how many instagram followers they have
Major sports team are about engaging fans. If a promising recruit had a huge social media presence then that could be a contributing factor toward trying to recruit that player.
This is actually easier to understand if you look at the inverse: Some times there are players with amazing stats but who have a cloud of controversy following them. Teams will skip over these problematic players despite their performance because having popular and engaging players is important for teams but having anti-popular players will drive away fans.
I have personally seen several company CEOs (that were billionaires!) do this in different ways. Sometimes hiring people because of it.
Nevertheless, VCs are in fact pretty dumb sometimes and it'd be stupid to invest soley based on stars.
Github stars used to really mean something. Having 1k+ was considered a stable, mature library being used in prod by thousands of people. At 10k+ you were a top level open source project. Now they've been gamed by the dead internet just like everything else, and it's depressing as hell.
Not quite the same, but the New York Jets (one of the few NFL teams that can match the dysfunction of the Browns — they have the longest active playoff drought in big 4 North American sports) passed on a few successful players because the owner, Woody Johnson, reportedly didn't like their Madden (video game) ratings [0]:
> A few weeks later, Douglas and his Broncos counterpart, George Paton, were deep in negotiations for a trade that would have sent Jeudy to the Jets and given future Hall of Fame quarterback Aaron Rodgers another potential playmaker. The Broncos felt a deal was near. Then, abruptly, it all fell apart. In Denver’s executive offices, they couldn’t believe the reason why.
> Douglas told the Broncos that Johnson didn’t want to make the trade because the owner felt Jeudy’s player rating in “Madden NFL,” the popular video game, wasn’t high enough, according to multiple league sources. The Broncos ultimately traded the receiver to the Cleveland Browns. Last Sunday, Jeudy crossed the 1,000-yard receiving mark for the first time in his career.
...
> Johnson’s reference to Jeudy’s “Madden” rating was, to some in the Jets’ organization, a sign of Brick and Jack’s influence. Another example came when Johnson pushed back on signing free-agent guard John Simpson due to a lackluster “awareness” rating in Madden. The Jets signed Simpson anyway, and he has had a solid season: Pro Football Focus currently has him graded as the eighth-best guard in the NFL.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6005172/2024/12/19/woody-jo...
Once surfaced, there’s other signals to filter if an initial conversation is even worth it.
Assuming everyone else is just stupid and it’s all luck is a good way to hold yourself back from your potential.
It's a bit like the old article about evaluating software companies on whether they have version control or not. Everyone has version control now.
It's purely incentives. Heavy competition for early signal identification has pushed them to crappier and crappier indicators.
It’s not that they’re necessarily careless, it’s just that the bigger the net the more fish you catch. And when you own both all the fishing boats and all the nets…might as well cast wide.
Record labels did this with soundcloud or only picking up people who already had a following. Movies have done this repeatedly with adaptation (due respect to people who like their books remade faithfully, there's a reason the 70's/80's were that decade and it basically stopped once Comics/LotR arrived). A24 represents a disruption, not a normal studio. Books did this with webnovels or paying dirt cheap and making the Author market.
What people tend to forget is they're just resource gatekeepers. They could just choose to invest in offices with cats because an office with cats popped massively one time and you can't say they're wrong, because there's no alternative funding you can get to A/B test with. In theory there are different firms - but they often went to the same schools, same peer group, same fraternity/sororities, and once they're in the wild they all know each other. It's not a different behavior if it's VC or if it's Nashville.
The real question is how long before either governmental-busting or someone notices the lack of care with money and shops alternatives. In theory this is also partially why American firms face international risk - lacking people respecting their laziness, someone can break their model.
That said - I'm not saying they're not smart - just that often there's a tendency to delude that shortcuts taken represent a "good job" rather than "no one can really say we're doing it poorly".
- VCs definitely cared about our Stars, especially in early stages, but not as our primary metric. I suppose Stars might be the primary metric if they're truly off the charts, but usually they're just one of many social proof signals an investor might look at.
- Investors, especially at the earliest stages, are quite a varied bunch. Some were diligent about looking at who was leaving Stars on the repo (i.e. are these accounts fake/do they belong to potential future customers). Some less so. This is true for basically every metric (see: startups that grossly misreport ARR)
- Fake GitHub stars were a thing way before 2022. I'd have to look in more detail at the methodology here, but I'd question any analysis that finds that paying for GitHub Stars (or any social following kind of metric) is a strictly post-2022 thing. Any metric that can be construed as social proof will immediately have its own grifter economy. Investors know this and (mostly) do their diligence.
Finally, showing numbers is hard for an early stage open source startup. At later stages, you should be able to show an actual business with typical metrics, but at the seed stage you often just have a repo and a website. Your goal is just to get a lot of people using your software. You can add telemetry to track that, but that's a thorny decision. GitHub Stars aren't a terrible proxy for popularity, provided that you audit the quality of the following. A project with a lot of organic stars and forks is, at the very least, a project that a lot of people are familiar with.
I'm not saying that GitHub Stars aren't wildly overvalued or gamed, but contextualized properly, they're a reasonable metric to consider, particularly at earlier stages. Most investors aren't just throwing millions at random repositories with 20k Stars from obviously spam accounts.
Union Labs is the most consequential case. It was ranked #1 on Runa Capital's ROSS Index for Q2 2025 - a widely cited VC industry report identifying the "hottest open-source startups" - with 54.2x star growth and 74,300 stars. Our analysis found 32.7% zero-repo accounts, 52% zero-follower accounts, and a fork-to-star ratio of 0.052. The StarScout analysis flagged it with 47.4% suspected fake stars. An influential investment-sourcing report that VCs rely on was topped by a project with nearly half its stars suspected as artificial.
The only claim here is that there’s a report that tracks GitHub star growth that is that is presumably read by VCs:
>> Union Labs is the most consequential case. It was ranked #1 on Runa Capital's ROSS Index for Q2 2025 - a widely cited VC industry report identifying the "hottest open-source startups" - with 54.2x star growth and 74,300 stars. Our analysis found 32.7% zero-repo accounts, 52% zero-follower accounts, and a fork-to-star ratio of 0.052. The StarScout analysis flagged it with 47.4% suspected fake stars. An influential investment-sourcing report that VCs rely on was topped by a project with nearly half its stars suspected as artificial.
Again, the claim here is that the report is “influential”. Maybe?
The market is completely flooded and promotors cannot practically sift through the sheer volume of mixes published online -- so they go by Internet points instead.
I agree it's idiotic; I'm quite confident that it wouldn't be that hard to cheat this system, and even if there absolutely no way to cheat the system, it's not like Hacker News points translate to smartness; my most upvoted posts have basically nothing to do with software engineering.
If you want to make it as an actor today, you need a social media following [1]. It is directly relevant to you getting cast. It also helps you connect with other actors, with producers and directors, etc.
Thing is, this isn't new. before social media, your influence was measured in "tear sheets" [2], basically any published story that you're in. This could be something as simple as going to Cannes or Sundance or even just to the hottest club.
Sports also uses a points system (kind of) but it's meant to reflect ability. Take the NFL, for example. Going from high school to college and college to the NFL, you will have stats relevant to whatever position(s) you play. For a QB it's things like interceptions, passing years, running yards, completed throw percentages, etc. You then have the NFL Combine [3]. This is an intensive camp where certain metrics are taken like how much you can lift, 40 yard dash, etc.
All of this tries to make it a science, or at least quantitative. But what I find funny is that despite all this work, it can still fail spectacularly. Like, being the #1 draft pick for the NFL is kind of a curse [4].
And then there's Tom Brady. For people unfamiliar with American sportsball, Tom Brady is arguably the greatest quarterback in the game's history, having 7 Superbowl rings. Thing is, he was a 6th round draft pick in the 2000 NFL draft. For anyone not familiar with what that means, 6th (and especially 7th) round draft picks are like the bottom of the barrel. You're not expected to take a starting position. You may not even play unless 1-2 people get injured. Nobody expects you to be a great.
[1]: https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/social-media-acto...
[2]: https://avenueagency.wordpress.com/tag/tear-sheet
[3]: https://www.nfl.com/combine
[4]: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/01/13/sportscasting-exce...
Are VC's just that lazy about making investment decisions? Is this yet another side-effect of ZIRP[2] and too much money chasing a return? Is nobody looking too hard in the hope of catching the next rocket to the moon?
From the outside, investing based on GitHub stars seems insane. Like, this can't be a serious way of investing money. If you told me you were going to invest my money based on GitHub stars, I'd laugh, and then we'd have an awkward silence while I realize there isn't a punchline coming.
[0] I'm from Cleveland. I get to pick on them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cleveland_Browns_seaso... I think their record speaks for itself.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy