hyperliner

“Due to the sensitivity of personnel issues and the privacy of all involved, the investigation was kept confidential.”

Wow, there is a predator in the group, but "privacy"?

The leadership of this organization is complicit. It's disingenuous to pretend they "just found out." There are enough signals that indicate that they let "Dave be Dave." They let this continue on for years. Terminate this organization for the good of those involved and their investors (some of whom also likely knew).

The biggest issue here is not that Dave is a creep and that he has been let go.

The biggest issue is that the leaders of this 500 Startups organization let this go on for years without taking action.

Who are the people who let their organization's logo and name appear in this guy's slides together with the words "GET YOU LAID (=SEX)"?

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/dmc500hats/how-to-pitch-a-...

It does not matter if they are men or women. THEY ARE COMPLICIT in this mess.

Very useful.

Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve?

The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right.

Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.

"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."

Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."

The Denney's (previous owners) used to charge for people using their property to go into the beach. Maybe you should read instead of calling names and getting bent out of shape?

"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.

"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."

Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."

"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.

"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."

Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."

(You may want to click in the linked article in the main article that OP posted)

"So the coastal commission tried to broker a compromise, chief of enforcement Lisa Haage said. Officials offered to consider moving the access road, to find a nonprofit to operate the entry and to close on rainy days when the beach was muddy. But the talks went nowhere."

If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives?

But does he have that? That is the part that is unclear. Is there an easement in this property that somehow nobody seems to point to?

If they are valid, and he shots and kills an intruder, would that be trespassing and he fearing for his life be a valid legal defense?

I had read that too. It's clear that the beaches are public. But I would not trust a government employee. It's unclear to me that the Constitution guarantees my right to cross anybody's private property to access the public beach. Why can't people go through other properties doors, climb fences, etc. to enjoy the right to use a public beach? Why is this path considered public property, when it is clearly private? I think this is the issue.

Exactly. My gut tells me that the constitution guarantees beaches are public, but it does not guarantee the right to trespass on private property to exercise the beach right. But I have asked this question to understand if my understanding is correct.

Is the question here not that Public Access if guaranteed constitutionally, but whether a single citizen should bear the cost of the public having to go through his property to access the beach?

I can't tell what the Constitution says about which path the public must use to access a beach.

Is it the case that the State or municipalities failed to secure or purchase property to build a path, and now want a single citizen to pay for this path?

It's funny to see people here trying to protect something "because the Constitution" when the right to bear arms in the US Cobstitution is "archaic and should be changed."

You mean trespassing into private property without a warrant?

So it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed.

Or is there a difference?

US tax payer here.

I'm going to stay away from discussing TurboTax from a political perspective.

However, I have used TurboTax since the first year I had income. It's super easy. As my income has gotten complex over time (from simple, one employer tax return to multiple employers in a same year, real estate, investments, and office expenses), I have found TurboTax worth the $90 or $100 it costs to purchase the software every year. I always purchase the $40 "Audit Protection" and have never used it: not once I have been audited.

It does take some investment of time. You need to read the questions, learn to figure out the forms that you get from banks, and be careful in inputing your data. But a lot of the sections are skipped anyway. I learned to stay away from buying stocks that are partnerships (pain the behind to do during TaxTime, not worth the hassle if you can find alternative stocks). TurboTax remembers my last year's numbers and that is also super easy. It helps me stay informed and keep responsibility for my tax situation and make my own decisions on what to do next year without "the government or the employer doing it for me."

I have always had the temptation to go to a full service (H&R Block, or some of the higher end ones offered by my bank), with the idea of maybe discovering that I have been overpaying all these years! But I have never done it, mainly because of concerns on identity theft. Today, all my data is in my computer and the only time the data leaves my network is when I send it to TurboTax for e-filing. This could also be avoided if I printed it and mailed it, but I rather not take my chances with lost mail.

I did have some large income a number of years back due to a sale of a company, and I was doubting myself about whether I was "paying too much." I simply asked folks around me, and they told me "nope, you are good" as the cash was distributed as regular income in my W2.

All in all, TurboTax has served me well. My investment is a total of about 10 hours or so spread over a few months. Every time I get a new form, I go to TurboTax and input it. Sometime around March I wrap things up and file.

I think it's because the political environment is so polarized that one must a) simply comment what an echo chamber expects to earn a cookie or b) nuance your answer or statements to make sure you are not blindly classified as "left-winger" or "right-winger" etc.

I mean, it's not like people want to risk being fired from their job just because they posted something in some random forum, but that is exactly what could happen in some quarters.

While HN tends to have really smart people voicing opinions, there are also people with knee-jerk reactions for whom anything that does not fit their view of the world require an immediate inquisition.

(Note how I started my last paragraph. I did not have to do that because it's obvious, but I have to because some people would then flame over the second sentence alone).

It's only a fraud if you take the money and never deliver it.

If you don't take the money or deliver within the stated parameters, how is it fraud?

Many business sell product they don't have. It's a standard practice in some businesses such as when you don't take delivery of the product as a seller, or when you use someone else's inventory, etc.

Flaming not necessary. You were not called "wrong." You were asked whether you considered the possibility that you and the OP could be in agreement at least partially.

PEOPLE: can we not take everything so personally please? It's killing the country and some good HN threads.

<EDIT> And even if you were called "wrong," who cares? it probably just means that your argument "could be wrong" so it's not you. And if it's you, then consider it a great anonymous tip for life improvement! And if you prove that someone else's argument is wrong, then guess what: you just helped a fellow human!

I am sure a FB employee will invite her to stay at their house. I saw some of them protesting at the airport when the travel ban happened, and they looked like they really wanted to make a difference in the world. I bet this will happen, they had #resist signs and stuff, I am willing to hold my breath.

(Starting now)

It's just that every job is designed and paid for differently. I think the company simply has a budget to offer as payment for a certain outcome.

Think about it from the opposite direction: a business owner could state I have never fully understood the insistence that employees get paid when they are using the restroom.

It would be insanity.

I attribute a lot of this to the unreasonable demands from some unions to create job definitions that are impractical ("driver cannot be the person who loads truck"). Fortunately, unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

>>> While there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic and educational capital to preserve its advantages — think of the clustering of professionals into exclusive neighborhoods, or the early immersion of professional-class children into a world of literacy, art and science — its move left is evident even on questions of economic redistribution. My own analysis of data from the General Social Survey shows that in recent decades, as class inequality has increased, Americans who hold advanced degrees have grown more supportive of government efforts to reduce income differences, whether through changes to taxes or strengthening the welfare system.

>>> On this issue, the views of the highly educated are now similar to those of groups with much lower levels of education, who have a real material stake in reducing inequalities. Even higher-income advanced degree holders have become more redistributionist, if less so than others.

One of the benefits of higher education is access to higher income. As a person reaches a certain level of income, his or her ability to entertain broader issues and discussions tends to become more and more disconnected from the impact of the policies that such issues would derive into. So it is easy for a liberal to say that "coal mines need to be put out of business," while sipping a late at a San Francisco coffee shop instead of being a poor miner in Kentucky. Or the liberal can say "we need more Somali immigrants" from the comforts of the New York apartment and not the small community in St. Cloud Minnesota.

So the answer for many liberals is that they are liberal because they can afford to be.

Now, social liberalism has given us interesting discussions and expanded the rights of the population at large. Think inter-race or gay marriage, for example. So in these cases, these educated elites have been able to articulate how these changes for the most part do not affect the rights or life style of others.

On the other hand, liberalism has also advocated for expanded role of the federal government without helping really address economic disadvantages in certain communities. I wonder if there is data to support the conservative notion that liberals are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype of the liberal elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media, press or higher education.

The article "The smug style in American liberalism" is a good read for those interested: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...

The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population that does not value liberty and the responsibilities that liberty conveys. Obviously that is also a generalization, so it would be interesting to write an article about "Why are the Highly Educated so Conservative?" or as another commenter mentioned here "Why are the Conservatives so Conservative?"

Let me replay what you are saying, using you as the subject:

According to your [ubermonkey's] first comment here, you are a "long-term collector of mechanicals." Why do you ubermonkey do that? Isn't that just obsessive hoarding? Why do you keep old things around? Seems obsessive to me.

I mean, what's the point of disparaging someone's pleasures? Can't you just appreciate it for what it is, just someone's interesting, unusual hobby or usage? Can't you give him/her some idea about how to improve what s/he is doing? Or simply leave it alone. Like most moms say: if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Patient pays doctor when patient is following instructions, not eating fast food, not smoking, etc? That would make it even.

Why do you care that these companies go out of business?

The answer is that you care because you need all the stuff you consume that comes from across the oceans.

You care because you complain if the stuff you buy is more expensive, penalizing companies that use cleaner shipping nethods.

You care because (I think) you are not the one committing your money to create a less contaminating medium of transportation.

At the end of the day, you care that these ships are operational because it's better for you and you don't care about the damage for the future of others.

you above is not just you but all of us.

I have always wondered about this. While this is welcome, I am reading and can feel my blood pressure, stress level, and focus increasing as I read.

How are facts relevant to this question? Seems the answer depends on your vision of the world, and as a result multipke different sets of facts can be used to make each argument.

Loved your answer but adding some explanations for those of us not as smart as you:

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules. It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.

"I think that Democrats are sometimes guilty of playing on fear and anger too, for example a resentful desire to smash elites without any realistic constructive analysis. I think that Sanders is admirable in many ways, but by inviting people to feel anger and in a sense fear of elites, and then offering them only hopelessly unworkable programs, he encouraged emotional irresponsibility."