Hacker News Reader

Comment by fasthands9 | Hacker News Reader

>He wrote that after he tweeted a cartoon last year, Twitter HR asked him to take it down, along with one he had posted internally.

I do not understand the perceived right some people think they have to publicly harm the entity that is paying them. A private company is paying you to make them money and you accepted the role because you thought it was the most money you could make. If they decide that you have gone out of their way to create PR/money problems for them then of course they will/should let you go.

View on HN

I worked at IBM years back. If there's one thing that binds current and former employees together it was the shared stitch & bitch about the company's way of doing things.

That would frequently happen in large public slack channels and to my knowledge (first and second hand) nobody was ever punished for that kind of talk. However, that was internal, between employees. Often it was about frustrations with how the company was run, sometimes using satire.

If that sort of thing happened in front of a client (which I never saw personally), I firmly believe that person would rightly be shown the door. It's one thing to complain about your company's problems internally, it's another to publish them.

My first job was at IBM in 1991 when the "Akers memo" came out. I was amazed by the internal discussion that ensued online and how open people were with complaints about the company.

I wasn’t even alive in 1991, but reading that memo sounds very familiar given the recent statements companies like Meta[1] have made in anticipation of recession. I wonder if Meta has internal discussion in the same way.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/technology/meta-facebook-...

maybe he was emulating the chief twit, who continues to denigrate the company even after he bought it

or are we already ad the mad king stage where everyone is forced to laugh when Elon posts a bad meme about twitter but if one of the peasants makes the same joke you get fed to the dragons?

> you thought it was the most money you could make.

Maximum income is not my goal. Livable income, much free time, and minimal taxes is closer to where I would be if I was looking to work at all.

> Livable income, much free time, and minimal taxes

This and "most money you can make" are synonymous. The most disposable income you can have per hour worked. That's it. That's what "maximum income" means.

According to your definition, my money number is zero. Also, many hourly workers refuse overtime due to the ramp on taxation after 40 hours.

There's no ramp on taxation after 40 hours in any jurisdiction I'm aware of-- just a ramp on income tax based on amount earned.

If you're making $800/week ($20/hour) and seeing withholding at 10%, the marginal withholding might be 20% on a step up to $950; on the other hand, you're getting time-and-a-half, so you still go from taking home $18/hour to $24/hour.

(And, of course, for occasional overtime work, you're going to get a lot of the additional tax withholding back, since your uneven income causes you to be overwithheld).

No. "Maximum income" is different from "maximum income per hour".

One implies income at the cost of free time. The other maximizes free time spent while having sufficient money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com