st3v3r

At the same time, in order to support Trump, you have to feel that xenophobia, sexual assault, bigotry, and mocking of the disabled are perfectly acceptable in a world leader. So they're not entirely innocent.

It's also a heavily moderated forum. Let's see what the response to the article is on Reddit or one of the Chans.

Wrong. Most internet forums are privately owned, and thus the concept doesn't apply. Plus, trolling and harassment isn't free speech. Conflating the two is insulting to those who are fighting for actual free speech, in places where they will be arrested for advocating that.

"What if most of them aren't "trolls" at all, but rather people who have something to say that is important to them and they choose a method to say it that upsets some people?"

If the only way you can express your dislike of a black actress is to compare her to an ape, maybe just shut the fuck up.

"It is entirely too easy to dismiss a person if all you think they want is to make you mad with what they've said."

And it's entirely too easy to ignore the problem of real trolling and harassment if you think it's just people with "differing opinions".

For something like /r/the_donald, you're right. But for something more general, like general Twitter, you're not.

Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple.

What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

No. I am rejecting your reply. Go back and look at what happened to Leslie Jones, then try again. This is not simply "Leslie Jones Sucks".

I'm sorry, but this "ignore the trolls" meme has been proven wrong time and again these past few years. It's not a solution.

That's what they're trying to do.

But I'm getting really, really, really tired of people conflating the "other side" stuff with the trolling stuff. Look at all the stuff sent to Leslie Jones last summer. Do you honestly think that was meant to be a dialog? Of course not. That was trolling. That was harassment. And that is what people are trying to filter out.

How are they going to hire you if they don't know you exist?

A large part of getting the MBA is the piece of paper saying you have one, and another large part of it is the network you form while getting it. Things you can't really get online.

So basically a bunch of classist bullshit.

The level of critical thinking missing in order to make a comment like that...

Wasting $100 Million on a 1% chance to disrupt an industry that is not ripe for disruption, and has been famously known for having razor thin margins is not a rational action.

Only if they weren't white (See: Oregon Federal Wildlife Refuge office occupation).

Yeah, no. That's not a slippery slope. That you just being obstinate.

People say that, but it doesn't always work that way. I've had potential employers say they won't proceed without that number, and that they would verify it. I, fortunately, was in a position to tell them to go pound sand, but I recognize that many may not be.

Except that equity is worth nowhere near the equity that VCs get, and in the majority of cases does not represent a reasonable return over the opportunity cost of taking the higher salary instead.

Does it? That person is going to have the anchor of that 60k follow them around. When they move on from the startup, most likely their new company is going to base the offer around that 60k. Whereas the other one is going to have their raises and offers based around the 100k.

Plus, there's something to be said for actually being able to afford a decent place to live, and to be able to put some money away for savings and investment. $60k in SF isn't going to let you do that. $100k might.

Maybe, but how many of those high-performance employees are already making buttloads of money? How many of them are just scraping by around the poverty line? It's pretty easy to say money isn't important when you already have it.

Wrong. This argument is intellectually lazy, and serves only to let you feel smugly superior to others. I suggest that such comments be flagged in the future.

It is fact. Feel free to disprove it if you can.

Why should VCs get a 30-50% return on what they put in, but engineers don't get a 30-50% return on the salary they sacrificed to actually do the damn work of the startup?

Then don't be surprised if they storm your house and take your stuff.

Not necessarily, but I'm against people not being able to feed their families more.

Does it, though? That's like saying it hurts the economy because I can't afford a Ferrari.

Do you advertise your pay rates with your job postings? Cause that would probably stop a lot of people you can't afford from applying, making it easier to find the people you can afford.

"Of course it means a lower salary."

Why? How does the value of the work I provide change based on where I'm located? Is an if statement somehow different if done in the Bay Area vs the Midwest?

"Why doesn't the article explore starting up in different geographies?"

Honestly, because most VCs are insanely lazy, and have no interest in traveling anywhere outside the Bay Area to do stuff.

Agreed. If you dilute a single employee's equity by any amount, you do not deserve to have that employee. Period.

I also have a limited amount of cash, and thus I need to work where I can maximize my compensation.