4 ms·

Exactly, thank you. I can't believe how many people like this there are on a forum that's ostensibly about startups, but I suppose HN has long since stopped bei

Exactly, thank you. I can't believe how many people like this there are on a forum that's ostensibly about startups, but I suppose HN has long since stopped being about startups now.

lkjdsklf 4mo ago
The entire reason I disagree with the way wealth is shared is because I workedi n startups for years. I worked my balls off to make millions for CEO founders and other asshole investors and only got a pittance of the wealth that they made off my work.
- satvikpendem 4mo ago
  You agreed to this when you signed up, maybe you should have negotiated more equity instead or went to some other company or started your own company which is the risk (and reward) those founders took. Sounds like many in this thread just have a sort of spilled milk viewpoint. No one forced you to work for these startups.
  - lkjdsklf 4mo ago
    > You agreed to this when you signed up Have you ever actually worked in a start up? That's not how it works. You can negotiate whatever you want. The deal can still change out form under you as new investors come on. Not to mention, you're negotiating from a point of information asymmetry. They know way more about their plans for the company than you do and will often tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth. You can make some attempts at discerning if they're being honest or not, but ultimately you're left to just make a guess. They also enter the negotiation from a strong position economically. They aren't going to miss a rent payment without a Job. The company itself may be fucked if they can't hire, but not the investors/founders. So the negotiation is inherently unfair from the start. > Sounds like many in this thread just have a sort of spilled milk viewpoint. No one forced you to work for these startups. This is not relevant to whether their actions were moral, ethical or fair.
    - csallen 4mo ago
      You can ask about all of these things during negotiations, and an increasingly large share of people do. I'm grateful for LLMs, because they're making people much better and more knowledgeable negotiators. Ultimately it's possible to get screwed, but you can also choose not to work at startups and get a traditional job with less risk. And the existence of some bad actors and screwy deals in the startup community is not really valid commentary on the greater picture of "the way wealth is shared." That was one way that wealth was shared, at one company, in one industry, with one or several bad actors.
      - lkjdsklf 4mo ago
        > That was one way that wealth was shared, at one company, in one industry, with one or several bad actors. Except it's not. It's the norm not the exception. It's pervasive through the industry, and YC and pg have done it themselves to multiple companies. Hence why it was literally turned into a meme plot on a TV show. You also ignored the bit about the negotiation being inherently unfair from the get go. And again, the deal can (and almost assuredly will) change out from under you because of the structure of the company which isn't really up for negotiation.
        csallen 4mo ago
        I disagree, and I've never seen any stats to support your belief that people getting screwed is the norm. But I've seen many, many stats of new startups minting millionaires.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > I'm grateful for LLMs, because they're making people much better and more knowledgeable negotiators. Just to be clear, we're talking about the same LLMs that were recently silently tuned to kneecap competitors? https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-responds-to-backlash-on-claudes-secret-sabotage-on-ai-research/ https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-responds-to-backlash-o...
        4mo ago
Noumenon72 4mo ago
I'm genuinely curious whether HN's political turn represents generational turnover or a small group of vocal agitators. The anti-car faction I can safely say is the latter, the anti-billionaire people I'm not sure about.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  My account's from 2010. What if HN hasn't taken a political turn? What if politics took a giant turn, and HN is roughly the same as it was?
- satvikpendem 4mo ago
  I've been on HN for a long time, before this account on other anonymous ones. It certainly seemed that in the 2010s there was a more hopeful undercurrent of startup activity, even as external events like Occupy Wall Street happened, but that wasn't as big on HN as e.g. Reddit, but now it seems like people have brought that energy to HN in more numbers, even if some have stayed the same as the sibling says. Some even have specific agendas as evidenced by their submission history and comments which all seem to follow specific biases too.

Exactly, thank you. I can't believe how many people like this there are on a forum that's ostensibly about startups, but I suppose HN has long since stopped being about startups now.

lkjdsklf 4mo ago

The entire reason I disagree with the way wealth is shared is because I workedi n startups for years. I worked my balls off to make millions for CEO founders and other asshole investors and only got a pittance of the wealth that they made off my work.

satvikpendem 4mo ago
You agreed to this when you signed up, maybe you should have negotiated more equity instead or went to some other company or started your own company which is the risk (and reward) those founders took. Sounds like many in this thread just have a sort of spilled milk viewpoint. No one forced you to work for these startups.
- lkjdsklf 4mo ago
  > You agreed to this when you signed up Have you ever actually worked in a start up? That's not how it works. You can negotiate whatever you want. The deal can still change out form under you as new investors come on. Not to mention, you're negotiating from a point of information asymmetry. They know way more about their plans for the company than you do and will often tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth. You can make some attempts at discerning if they're being honest or not, but ultimately you're left to just make a guess. They also enter the negotiation from a strong position economically. They aren't going to miss a rent payment without a Job. The company itself may be fucked if they can't hire, but not the investors/founders. So the negotiation is inherently unfair from the start. > Sounds like many in this thread just have a sort of spilled milk viewpoint. No one forced you to work for these startups. This is not relevant to whether their actions were moral, ethical or fair.
  - csallen 4mo ago
    You can ask about all of these things during negotiations, and an increasingly large share of people do. I'm grateful for LLMs, because they're making people much better and more knowledgeable negotiators. Ultimately it's possible to get screwed, but you can also choose not to work at startups and get a traditional job with less risk. And the existence of some bad actors and screwy deals in the startup community is not really valid commentary on the greater picture of "the way wealth is shared." That was one way that wealth was shared, at one company, in one industry, with one or several bad actors.
    - lkjdsklf 4mo ago
      > That was one way that wealth was shared, at one company, in one industry, with one or several bad actors. Except it's not. It's the norm not the exception. It's pervasive through the industry, and YC and pg have done it themselves to multiple companies. Hence why it was literally turned into a meme plot on a TV show. You also ignored the bit about the negotiation being inherently unfair from the get go. And again, the deal can (and almost assuredly will) change out from under you because of the structure of the company which isn't really up for negotiation.
      - csallen 4mo ago
        I disagree, and I've never seen any stats to support your belief that people getting screwed is the norm. But I've seen many, many stats of new startups minting millionaires.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      > I'm grateful for LLMs, because they're making people much better and more knowledgeable negotiators. Just to be clear, we're talking about the same LLMs that were recently silently tuned to kneecap competitors? https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-responds-to-backlash-on-claudes-secret-sabotage-on-ai-research/ https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-responds-to-backlash-o...
      - 4mo ago

Noumenon72 4mo ago

I'm genuinely curious whether HN's political turn represents generational turnover or a small group of vocal agitators. The anti-car faction I can safely say is the latter, the anti-billionaire people I'm not sure about.

ceejayoz 4mo ago
My account's from 2010. What if HN hasn't taken a political turn? What if politics took a giant turn, and HN is roughly the same as it was?
satvikpendem 4mo ago
I've been on HN for a long time, before this account on other anonymous ones. It certainly seemed that in the 2010s there was a more hopeful undercurrent of startup activity, even as external events like Occupy Wall Street happened, but that wasn't as big on HN as e.g. Reddit, but now it seems like people have brought that energy to HN in more numbers, even if some have stayed the same as the sibling says. Some even have specific agendas as evidenced by their submission history and comments which all seem to follow specific biases too.