Yes, I did. I'm debating whether or not to write much detail about this in a separate post... but the gist is that the big companies were not interested in acquiring a one-person team, literally destroying any chance of a talent acquisition. Another strike against single-founders.

That may be a strike against being a single founder, but it seems like a strike in favour of single-founder startups: Because they don't have "talent acquisition" as an exit option, they're more likely to avoid dying.

More likely to run to $0 and shut down entirely, vs. a talent acquisition (which always looks better than a shut down, and has a chance of returning a tiny bit of capital to angels who invested early)?

Sounds like another point in favor of multi-founder startups. I wouldn't consider even a talent acquisition to be "dying" if the founders end up happy about it.

I would request you to write about this in a separate post.

I'd love to hear more about the single founder experience too, could you tell us more about that or write up a post about that?

Edit: I just found a post about your experience on your blog, thanks for writing about it already. For others who are curious about this, see here: http://blog.jazzychad.net/2011/08/31/applying-to-yc-as-a-sin...