5 ms·

This recent exchange with DHH may give you some insights: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/78756174568661811

This recent exchange with DHH may give you some insights: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113

kchoudhu 10y ago
I used to work at a bank, which regularly required pre-clearance for employee donations to political parties and candidates to avoid conflict of interest issues. If YC is saying Thiel can't be managed on that basis, he is a partner. And if he is a partner, YC can choose not to partner with him.
- striking 10y ago
  But is there a conflict of interest here? YC isn't exactly a bank, you realize. It wouldn't make sense for them to have to manage CoIs, as far as I can tell. And firing Thiel like dhh is describing in his tweets seems fairly illegal to me (tho IANAL).
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    "We deploy our own and other peoples' money to make broad spectrum investments in the technology industry." I could see both Goldman Sachs and YC operating under this mission statement. As much as PG wants him to be, Thiel isn't an employee. He's a partner in a partnership, and partnerships have been dissolved for worse reasons than "offending partner is an opportunistic bigot".
striking 10y ago
dhh needs to chill. I understand writing in the polemic style is something people do, and that it's not fair to judge people on it, but it's really not working in his favor. https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg
S4M 10y ago
The fact that PG answers DHH with another question to avoid the original question proves that he (PG) is uncomfortable with the subject. Though, this would better be asked to sama.
- striking 10y ago
  He's not avoiding the question. It's a stupid question. And this isn't nearly the first time dhh has butted heads with pg on Twitter (for no discernible reason other than to pick a fight).
  - S4M 10y ago
    DHH asks him if Thiel has invested more in Trump than in any other YC startup - implicitly asking PG if he's happy to have such a partner. PG retorts by asking if DHH would fire an employee who would be supporting Trump. How is that not avoiding the question?
    - striking 10y ago
      I doubt it's even a question pg can answer though. I see it as pg getting to the crux of dhh's argument, without the foreplay. It helps show dhh's true beliefs. But sure, it is dodging the question. This is a thing they have discussed before. If I were pg, I'd be bored with it by now.

This recent exchange with DHH may give you some insights: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787561745686618113

kchoudhu 10y ago

I used to work at a bank, which regularly required pre-clearance for employee donations to political parties and candidates to avoid conflict of interest issues. If YC is saying Thiel can't be managed on that basis, he is a partner. And if he is a partner, YC can choose not to partner with him.

striking 10y ago
But is there a conflict of interest here? YC isn't exactly a bank, you realize. It wouldn't make sense for them to have to manage CoIs, as far as I can tell. And firing Thiel like dhh is describing in his tweets seems fairly illegal to me (tho IANAL).
- kchoudhu 10y ago
  "We deploy our own and other peoples' money to make broad spectrum investments in the technology industry." I could see both Goldman Sachs and YC operating under this mission statement. As much as PG wants him to be, Thiel isn't an employee. He's a partner in a partnership, and partnerships have been dissolved for worse reasons than "offending partner is an opportunistic bigot".

striking 10y ago

dhh needs to chill. I understand writing in the polemic style is something people do, and that it's not fair to judge people on it, but it's really not working in his favor. https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg

S4M 10y ago

The fact that PG answers DHH with another question to avoid the original question proves that he (PG) is uncomfortable with the subject. Though, this would better be asked to sama.

striking 10y ago
He's not avoiding the question. It's a stupid question. And this isn't nearly the first time dhh has butted heads with pg on Twitter (for no discernible reason other than to pick a fight).
- S4M 10y ago
  DHH asks him if Thiel has invested more in Trump than in any other YC startup - implicitly asking PG if he's happy to have such a partner. PG retorts by asking if DHH would fire an employee who would be supporting Trump. How is that not avoiding the question?
  - striking 10y ago
    I doubt it's even a question pg can answer though. I see it as pg getting to the crux of dhh's argument, without the foreplay. It helps show dhh's true beliefs. But sure, it is dodging the question. This is a thing they have discussed before. If I were pg, I'd be bored with it by now.