Hacker News Reader

Would you agree it does often mean that?

More specifically, for what percentage of startups would you consider it fair to say?

I have no idea, but a statistical correlation does not justify the blanket characterization made by the article, where "risk-taker" is essentially held as a synonym for "privileged".

What's the harm?

It diminishes the accomplishments of entrepreneurs, and the sacrifices they've made. If they only have large equity stakes in the companies they founded because they're "privileged" it casts them as undeserving of the wealth they acquired.

Ok. And what's the harm in that?

Isn't it self-evident? It harms their standing and reputation, in being cast as in possession of wealth they are not morally entitled to. It's defamation.

Privileged =/= undeserving

Can you show an example of damage done by this sort of "defamation"?

Privileged clearly implies undeserving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com