4 ms·

It's not specifically about technical problems. He's saying that you need to just go all in on getting traction and not constantly be worrying about things that

It's not specifically about technical problems. He's saying that you need to just go all in on getting traction and not constantly be worrying about things that aren't going to matter if you never get it. It's the same thing as people who just opine about how they'll handle the big server bills, or how they'll scale to a billion users, or how they'll deal with regulations, when they haven't gotten their first user yet.

ryandrake 2y ago
This advice kind of feels like "Don't pay your taxes. Just go all in on enjoying your life and not constantly be worrying about things that aren't going to matter if you die. Worry about it later if the IRS goes after you." You really should be preparing for the future and operating above board, even from day one.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  You don’t have to pay income taxes until you record profit, at least, so that really is like what he is saying. The IRS is not going to think this is weird, many (most even) startups never get to the point of paying taxes, and non-profits by definition don’t.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Obviously I'm not talking specifically about corporate taxes, here. In fact the example was about personal taxes. It's a generality about the attitude of "Ignore the rules, do what you have to now, and worry about the consequences later."
    - sroussey 2y ago
      No, it more like “rewrite the rules” either by litigation or politics.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      I don’t understand how we went from talking about “companies not worrying about success problems until they have success” to talking about individuals where none of that applies and is just a bad analogy.
- tracerbulletx 2y ago
  If something is clearly illegal or immoral to you don't do it. This is more about if its ambiguous or you believe your companies goal is a good thing and it's unclear if you will get sued for it.
  - salawat 2y ago
    >If something is clearly illegal or immoral to you don't do it. You're posting on a forum run by a group that asks applicants when they've skirted the law to get something done. Your use of the modifier "clearly" here is pointless. Remember; you've literally lived through companies funneling in investment dollars into things like Project Greyball, which was entirely intended to gaslight law enforcement/regulators. Or who have regularly tried to financial engineer or corporately structure their way out of culpability long enough to successfully execute on pump-n-dumps. Or who birthed the entire sector of "totally not a bank/financial institution" that is the cryptocurrency space.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  Another interpretation is that (1) copyright interests are over-protected (at least) in US law because publishing industries are very influential, and that this policy overweights their short-term profit motive and underweights other interests that might benefit from looser enforcement (as the Constitution puts it: "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts.") And simultaneously, (2) if you can actually demonstrate such an interest (in particular: a profitable business that cannot exist when copyright law is fully enforced), the courts and publishers won't actually shut you down, but will settle for a cut of the new revenue you created.
- nostrademons 2y ago
  Note that rich people (and at least one prominent ex-President, and I don't think he's the only one) actually do operate by that principle. They go on and enjoy their life, largely don't pay their taxes, and then hire an army of lawyers and accountants to clean up the mess when the IRS goes after them. I was raised to play by the rules and do everything by the book, but sometimes I wonder if that's just something that people who have no intention of playing by the rules say to screw over us gullible people.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Note that rich people (and at least one prominent ex-President, and I don't think he's the only one) actually do operate by that principle. They go on and enjoy their life, largely don't pay their taxes, and then hire an army of lawyers and accountants to clean up the mess when the IRS goes after them. While many rich people do commit tax fraud, it's worth nothing it's usually not as straightforward as "largely don't pay their taxes". It's not like they get a bill from the IRS and just refuse to pay it. Instead, they use a combination of legally gray tactics to reduce their tax obligations. eg. for peter thiel, he put a bunch of paypal stock in a roth IRA pre-IPO, allowing him to avoid taxes on much of his exit. Was this legal? Was the valuation he used when he put the stock in the roth IRA correct or artificially low? You could argue either way, so you could plausibly do it while keeping a clean conscience. The same applies to AI startups. They argue what they're doing is covered under fair use, and there's plausible legal arguments/precedent supporting that. It's not like they're doing something obviously illegal like duplicating DVDs and selling them at a shady street stall. Also it's unclear what "prominent ex-President" you're referring to, but the wikipedia article for donald trump only says his foundation was charged, not him personally.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    You're absolutely right about that. Unfortunately there is a parallel consequence-free life track for rich people. My comment wasn't about them.
- tim333 2y ago
  I think the equivalent of >...and hire lawyers to 'clean up the mess' would be don't worry about tax at the start and hire accountants to sort it later
esafak 2y ago
Do you remember Napster? They went all in on getting traction, succeeded, then got crushed by the music industry. Ignoring the law only works if you are bankrolled. Don't try this at home, kids.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  Yes, but how did things work out for the founders?
  - sroussey 2y ago
    Or the founders of Uber and Lyft? Legal gray area. They could have waited years and years and tried to get laws passed to allow their business to function with a clean slate of legality, but bureaucrats would have never allowed it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sillyfluke 2y ago
    This is kind of an amusing point to consider since we were talking about Kim Dotcom's extradition just moments ago. So is the point to try it if you've got Napster level success but not Megaupload level success? And since there is no way to know which level of success you are going to achieve beforehand, the note of caution still makes sense I guess?
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      Kim Dotcom made the mistake of not knowing when to quit. Napster shut down when it got told to shut down. Megaupload hopped around hoping to outsmart the law after it was told to shut down, and the executive branch doesn't let that go.
      - nothercastle 2y ago
        He also tried his hand at politics with musk level finesse. That didn’t help

ryandrake 2y ago

This advice kind of feels like "Don't pay your taxes. Just go all in on enjoying your life and not constantly be worrying about things that aren't going to matter if you die. Worry about it later if the IRS goes after you." You really should be preparing for the future and operating above board, even from day one.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
You don’t have to pay income taxes until you record profit, at least, so that really is like what he is saying. The IRS is not going to think this is weird, many (most even) startups never get to the point of paying taxes, and non-profits by definition don’t.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Obviously I'm not talking specifically about corporate taxes, here. In fact the example was about personal taxes. It's a generality about the attitude of "Ignore the rules, do what you have to now, and worry about the consequences later."
  - sroussey 2y ago
    No, it more like “rewrite the rules” either by litigation or politics.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    I don’t understand how we went from talking about “companies not worrying about success problems until they have success” to talking about individuals where none of that applies and is just a bad analogy.
tracerbulletx 2y ago
If something is clearly illegal or immoral to you don't do it. This is more about if its ambiguous or you believe your companies goal is a good thing and it's unclear if you will get sued for it.
- salawat 2y ago
  >If something is clearly illegal or immoral to you don't do it. You're posting on a forum run by a group that asks applicants when they've skirted the law to get something done. Your use of the modifier "clearly" here is pointless. Remember; you've literally lived through companies funneling in investment dollars into things like Project Greyball, which was entirely intended to gaslight law enforcement/regulators. Or who have regularly tried to financial engineer or corporately structure their way out of culpability long enough to successfully execute on pump-n-dumps. Or who birthed the entire sector of "totally not a bank/financial institution" that is the cryptocurrency space.
matthewdgreen 2y ago
Another interpretation is that (1) copyright interests are over-protected (at least) in US law because publishing industries are very influential, and that this policy overweights their short-term profit motive and underweights other interests that might benefit from looser enforcement (as the Constitution puts it: "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts.") And simultaneously, (2) if you can actually demonstrate such an interest (in particular: a profitable business that cannot exist when copyright law is fully enforced), the courts and publishers won't actually shut you down, but will settle for a cut of the new revenue you created.
nostrademons 2y ago
Note that rich people (and at least one prominent ex-President, and I don't think he's the only one) actually do operate by that principle. They go on and enjoy their life, largely don't pay their taxes, and then hire an army of lawyers and accountants to clean up the mess when the IRS goes after them. I was raised to play by the rules and do everything by the book, but sometimes I wonder if that's just something that people who have no intention of playing by the rules say to screw over us gullible people.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Note that rich people (and at least one prominent ex-President, and I don't think he's the only one) actually do operate by that principle. They go on and enjoy their life, largely don't pay their taxes, and then hire an army of lawyers and accountants to clean up the mess when the IRS goes after them. While many rich people do commit tax fraud, it's worth nothing it's usually not as straightforward as "largely don't pay their taxes". It's not like they get a bill from the IRS and just refuse to pay it. Instead, they use a combination of legally gray tactics to reduce their tax obligations. eg. for peter thiel, he put a bunch of paypal stock in a roth IRA pre-IPO, allowing him to avoid taxes on much of his exit. Was this legal? Was the valuation he used when he put the stock in the roth IRA correct or artificially low? You could argue either way, so you could plausibly do it while keeping a clean conscience. The same applies to AI startups. They argue what they're doing is covered under fair use, and there's plausible legal arguments/precedent supporting that. It's not like they're doing something obviously illegal like duplicating DVDs and selling them at a shady street stall. Also it's unclear what "prominent ex-President" you're referring to, but the wikipedia article for donald trump only says his foundation was charged, not him personally.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  You're absolutely right about that. Unfortunately there is a parallel consequence-free life track for rich people. My comment wasn't about them.
tim333 2y ago
I think the equivalent of >...and hire lawyers to 'clean up the mess' would be don't worry about tax at the start and hire accountants to sort it later

esafak 2y ago

Do you remember Napster? They went all in on getting traction, succeeded, then got crushed by the music industry. Ignoring the law only works if you are bankrolled. Don't try this at home, kids.

BobbyJo 2y ago
Yes, but how did things work out for the founders?
- sroussey 2y ago
  Or the founders of Uber and Lyft? Legal gray area. They could have waited years and years and tried to get laws passed to allow their business to function with a clean slate of legality, but bureaucrats would have never allowed it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sillyfluke 2y ago
  This is kind of an amusing point to consider since we were talking about Kim Dotcom's extradition just moments ago. So is the point to try it if you've got Napster level success but not Megaupload level success? And since there is no way to know which level of success you are going to achieve beforehand, the note of caution still makes sense I guess?
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    Kim Dotcom made the mistake of not knowing when to quit. Napster shut down when it got told to shut down. Megaupload hopped around hoping to outsmart the law after it was told to shut down, and the executive branch doesn't let that go.
    - nothercastle 2y ago
      He also tried his hand at politics with musk level finesse. That didn’t help