s73ver_

40 ms·

421.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Because that statement has a pretty big white nationalist connotation.
422.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
/r/nazi was removed because it promoted Nazism.
423.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Hell, what happens if the "smart contract" is poorly coded, and someone exploits it?
424.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
People's situations change all the time. And saying that someone should have to leave their property that they own because they can't afford the taxes on it is pretty awful. Especially if they can't afford them because proper
425.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I would still require income to be able to pay back that mortgage.
426.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
They can also be quite regressive. If you buy a house somewhere, live in it and retire, and then property values shoot up, you're kinda screwed.
427.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I guarantee you they were not talking about violent threats or racial slurs.
428.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Or, you could just offer a low bandwidth plan. Problem solved, AND you don't have to fuck the rest of us over by destroying the internet.
429.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"Without NN there would be a ton more providers to choose from because we'd be able to compete on more than price." That is an utter baldfaced lie. NN is not what is keeping competition down, not even close. If you want sympa
430.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I'm sure you'd like that. But I cannot allow it, because while I'm sure you'd have perfectly benign intentions of just using it for stuff like that, Comcast and AT&T don't. And there is no fucking way I am going
431.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Zero rating is only good for the companies that get it. If you're trying to compete with a company that has zero rating, but you don't, then you're fucked. You're gonna have to do a much, much better job of explaining wh
432.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Remember, calling Members of Congress is what killed the healthcare bills this past summer. It absolutely can and does work.
433.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I believe it is their business to act on price gouging, which that most definitely was.
434.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I don't. I see zero reason whatsoever that the contributions should come from anything but individual US Citizens. Additionally, I see zero reason why that shouldn't be capped at $500/person/tax year.
435.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Those companies are the ones that are talking to the legislators, though. The problem is that people are not also talking to those legislators. Remember the healthcare law battles over the summer? Phoning Senators and expressing displeasure
436.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
And yet, this has been a thing long before Amazon existed. They were able to pull it off back then.
437.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Where in that did I give permission to HiQ to do this highly unethical thing?
438.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Startups may be about risk, but your scheme puts a disproportionate amount of that risk on the employee. And, quite frankly, if you're not willing to imagine yourself as an employee that is getting their hard earned equity diluted to h
439.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
So someone should have to spend 1-2 weeks in jail, thus losing their job, losing their ability to pay rent, so likely losing their house, despite the fact that it has not been proven that they've done anything?
440.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I'm not willing to take that chance. There are enough shitheads in management that would see something like this and pounce on it, to where it might become an actual problem for lots of people. Remember, we live in a world where coffee
441.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Why does HiQ have any right to my data in the first place?
442.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
At the same time, I feel that a boss should not be able to deprive someone of their livelihood on a whim. I feel there should be an actual reason why the person is being fired.
443.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"VCs would simply hate it. Founders and employees get common and are last on the liquidation preference list." That's what should be changed, especially if you're asking someone to take a below market salary for somethin
444.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Sorry, but no. You've gone off track. And their post applies to far, far, far more people than your would apply to. This talk of 10,000x-ers is just ludicrous.
445.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Bail can serve that purpose. However, in many instances, it's really just an unreasonable tax on the poor.
446.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
No, I'm saying that if they're not able to find senior devs, that they should train junior devs. And I reject the idea that it creates a retention issue, unless you have no intention to treating those people well. "You don&#x
447.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"From the government's point of view, they were trying to maximize tax revenue, right?" This is a GOP tax bill, so no, not really.
448.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Considering the vast majority of companies fail rather than become unicorns, I feel their experience is much, much more generalized than the alternative.
449.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Would you offer those as preferred shares, with a non-dilution clause in there? Otherwise I don't see how that's just pushing risk onto the employee for no gain.
450.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
How is that better for the employee, though? All that's happened is that the employee took a substantial pay cut in exchange for having serious risk placed on them. Risk which is extremely tilted against them. This is also ignoring the

More ›