3 ms·

It indicates your attitude towards how one should act. Obviously, one should act in their own self interest and use the law to it's fullest extent, not conside

It indicates your attitude towards how one should act. Obviously, one should act in their own self interest and use the law to it's fullest extent, not consider the social consequences of being a dick. Good luck sir.

okabat 11y ago
Being aware of risk angles and protecting yourself is not the same thing as condoning exploitative behavior. I'd want my cofounder to think through how somebody with legal leverage over our company would act. You should want that too.
- proksoup 11y ago
  > I don't think so, it's the right way to play it. Wait until you have maximium leverage and then play your legal cards. That sounds like condoning exploitative behaviour to me. Is that the sentence we are both talking about?
jimbokun 11y ago
Which side is being more dickish in this case is still very much in dispute, which is why it's going to court. You seem to be certain one side is looking out for their self interest much more than the other, which you have no way of really knowing because you are just another person commenting on a discussion on the Internet. Unless you are personally involved in this matter, and know more than what has been publicly reported so far? And even then, how would we know you are not being biased in your judgments by your involvement?
- proksoup 11y ago
  The amounts of money involved make everyone involved pretty greedy, I don't understand why that's so controversial. Ya'alls notion of "rights" is pretty disturbing to me.
  - jimbokun 11y ago
    So you are against anyone being compensated at the amounts under discussion? Which is a coherent, defensible position. Sounded like you were selectively accusing one actor in this dispute as the "greedy" one, which I think is why you got so much push back on your comments.
    - proksoup 10y ago
      Not against anything, just think it's fair to label those seeking large amounts of money as dick'ish and greedy. If money is your goal great, more power to ya, but I'm gonna call you a dick and not want to work with you.
      - danso 10y ago
        So you're implying that you'd never work with YC or Vogt or any of their investors? GM is spending $1B to acquire Cruise, which is a vast sum for a small company that has been around for 3 years. Even 20% of that would be a great payout for all involved, and think of how much money GM could have left over to continue to revive the dormant U.S. industry, and U.S. fortunes at large. By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward.
        proksoup 10y ago
        > By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward. What do you need a reward for at all? Why are you trying to build something? By my standards, your motivation matters a lot, it sounds like you think people deserve rewards for doing things, I don't think that makes very much sense. Gold star you did the right thing, bullshit.

okabat 11y ago

Being aware of risk angles and protecting yourself is not the same thing as condoning exploitative behavior. I'd want my cofounder to think through how somebody with legal leverage over our company would act. You should want that too.

proksoup 11y ago
> I don't think so, it's the right way to play it. Wait until you have maximium leverage and then play your legal cards. That sounds like condoning exploitative behaviour to me. Is that the sentence we are both talking about?

jimbokun 11y ago

Which side is being more dickish in this case is still very much in dispute, which is why it's going to court. You seem to be certain one side is looking out for their self interest much more than the other, which you have no way of really knowing because you are just another person commenting on a discussion on the Internet. Unless you are personally involved in this matter, and know more than what has been publicly reported so far? And even then, how would we know you are not being biased in your judgments by your involvement?

proksoup 11y ago
The amounts of money involved make everyone involved pretty greedy, I don't understand why that's so controversial. Ya'alls notion of "rights" is pretty disturbing to me.
- jimbokun 11y ago
  So you are against anyone being compensated at the amounts under discussion? Which is a coherent, defensible position. Sounded like you were selectively accusing one actor in this dispute as the "greedy" one, which I think is why you got so much push back on your comments.
  - proksoup 10y ago
    Not against anything, just think it's fair to label those seeking large amounts of money as dick'ish and greedy. If money is your goal great, more power to ya, but I'm gonna call you a dick and not want to work with you.
    - danso 10y ago
      So you're implying that you'd never work with YC or Vogt or any of their investors? GM is spending $1B to acquire Cruise, which is a vast sum for a small company that has been around for 3 years. Even 20% of that would be a great payout for all involved, and think of how much money GM could have left over to continue to revive the dormant U.S. industry, and U.S. fortunes at large. By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward.
      - proksoup 10y ago
        > By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward. What do you need a reward for at all? Why are you trying to build something? By my standards, your motivation matters a lot, it sounds like you think people deserve rewards for doing things, I don't think that makes very much sense. Gold star you did the right thing, bullshit.