Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 619 posts

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#591

Post by 4h53n »

20yrs_no_equity wrote: post #305
gcb0 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here how it happens: a company, that is not really a company, keeps applying for tons of h1b. they usually have some title like consulting. they get the h1b and don't even bring the programmers from India. they become "visa holders" companies. the h1b's then start to look for work on their own, or the holder. and once the programmer is hired, the visa holder company gets paid, take 70% (or 60% if the programmer found…

Never have I seen this laid out before like this, and so I thank you for that! I think it's a real tragedy that we can't just have a rational Visa system- you get an offer from a company, then you should be able to get a work visa. Work visas continue for as long as you are employed plus one year. That gives you a year to get a new job. This is how you attract the best and the brightest and this is what america needs…

In EU it's called a Blue Card.

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#593

Post by AKifer »

From Jessica "1For.One is a start-up company in Silicon Valley, and unlike most impersonal and money hungry people you meet here, the founders have truly created a sense of family and obligation in the office. I’ve only been here a week, but feel completely integrated. Everyone is friendly and open, they work hard, but smart. It’s a breath of fresh air." https://tessfstevens.com/2016/06/10/the-new-mission-liking-y...

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#594

Post by wpietri »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #588
MichaelBurge wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say, "X has a right to Y", a reasonable interpretation of that is, "Someone(Z) is punished if X is denied access to Y". For example, I could say I have a right to structurally secure buildings. If the floor of the mall falls apart underneath me, I can sue them for damages for not obeying the building code. If the mall's owners refuse to pay, the police will storm their house to extract payment(and if they re…

You all seem to have this super bizarre belief that I was forcing someone to divulge information by saying I believed they should do it? Do you actually believe that or is this just a convenient thing to nit over?

Yes, when everybody doesn't understand what you wrote, the problem is everybody, and not what you wrote. Good point. Super good.

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#595

Post by wpietri »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #589
wpietri wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you literally are making up my point? Those are how rights work: through obligation and enforcement. A right to know is a positive right [1], which means other people are compelled to provide it for you. E.g., I have a legal right to know the financials of publicly traded companies. If a company fails to honor my right, the SEC will come after them. First with lawyers, then with people with guns. > Oh hey, another…

Seriously, is there a single shred of your being that believe that I was compelling this stranger to provide information...? We both know that you can't believe that, so why are you arguing your point as if you do...? What offends you so much that some stranger on the internet said that it was right for this information to be out in the open? Are you just completely desperate to argue with a stranger over nothing and…

Let's recap:

A bunch of people were complaining about Penny's not naming names. I pointed out that she didn't do it for a reason. For her to do so could be very costly. I said that if people really wanted her to talk, they should offer to share in the costs by putting together a legal defense fund.

You then responded by saying I couldn't be serious, and talking about "this person" (presumably kelukelugames) and whether I thought they had "no rights to know" more.

Assuming you were serious, I expanded on what an actual "right to know" would mean, showing that the idea has significant implementation problems. If you meant something else, you could have cleared that up by saying what you did mean.

> What offends you so much that some stranger on the internet said that it was right

The reason I objected is that when people take a gift and are immediately critical that the gift was not larger, it discourages the giving of gifts. If we want more whistleblowers, we must make sure their experience of whistleblowing is a positive one. If all they hear is, "Y U NO GIVE MOAR", that is not a positive experience.

I think it's particularly important here because this instant entitlement is a perennial problem for open source project maintainers.

Does that make my motivations clearer?

> Are you just completely desperate to argue with a stranger

Pal, you are the one who responded to me, and you did it with a lot of attitude. The person I was responding to thought my point was reasonable. You appear to be the only one excited for an argument here.

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#596

Post by wpietri »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #553
gotrecruit wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nah you're right, we should all be generous and give all YOUR money and things away. not our stuff though, we wanna keep those. let's just give away YOUR money.

I know that this is hackernews and being super obtuse and snarky trumps logic at all times, but uhhhh, where exactly do you believe I implied other people should be giving their money away?

You appear to believe that Penny Kim should have named names. That would have increased her risk of a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive. Ergo, if you argue for her naming names, you believe she should be willing to spend a lot of money on what you want.

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#597

Post by gotrecruit »

scott_karana wrote: post #586
gotrecruit wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as an ex-CEO who offered stock to employees in lieu of pay because my startup was running low on funds, it was all rejected. i later found out when i left the room, some of the employees actually mocked me and made it seem like i was just trying to scam them. one of them said something like "he's offering us stock in a company that is basically worthless, does he think we are idiots?" just to be clear, the company wa…

Eh, I can see that going both ways. As far as fluidity is concerned, stocks in a small, private company may as well be worth $0 since you can't pay rent or buy groceries with them. Nice gesture on your part though: still didn't deserve mockery. Hopefully it was just their fear talking. :)

well, a few months ago i actually ran into one of the ex-employees, in fact i believe he was one of the main ones who mocked me. he's now working for some small tech company as a web developer. we had a quick 10 minute chat about how life was, but in a moment of pettiness, i took the last minute as an opportunity to kind of mock him back. the conversation was kind of winding down, and i said "hey by the way, no hard feelings about that whole saga back in the day. honestly, i actually understand your position now so it's all good. not going to lie, if all of you had not rejected the offer, i would be a few million dollars short when the acquisition happened!"

i walked away with a smile, and that dude kind of just shrugged and walked away.

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#598

Post by snowwrestler »

xapata wrote: post #584
calvinbhai wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most of what you say is true. they can endure such jobs only for 6yrs, beyond which the company that sponsored the visa has to file for a green card (if they do, then the employee can continue suffering for a few more years).If they dont file for a GC, then its a one way ticket back to their home country (or go to Canada with a PR ready). the 70-30 split, is something I used to fume about, thinking its unfair to the…

> They pay the employee $.7X, and charge the client $X for every hr worked. That's a failing consulting company. A profitable consulting company needs to bill at 3x to 5x wages to support the overhead of sales and management. Even an individual, with no overhead but themselves, needs to bill at 2x what their desired wage would be if full-time.

I read original comment far above as saying that the company takes 70%, leaving 30% for the H1b employee. Or if the employee finds their own "job" (consulting gig), then the company only takes 60%. As you say, that seems more in line with typical consulting hourly mark-up.

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#599

Post by ConmanTwittie »

albertcbrown wrote: post #297

This is Charlie. I met the CEO (not sharing his name, though it is in this thread) through his brother in law, Jay. Jay worked with me at a prior company. He was a data scientist and factual. He mentioned his brother in law came to Silicon Valley to do a startup having made some money as an investment banker. As we talked, the CEO stated he is putting in $2M to fund the startup in November. In December, with $400k or…

All this sob story might elicit empathy in some....if it weren't for a detail that affects your credibility - who was handling the books for the company? I'll take - It was Mrs. Brown for the Win, Alex!

Re: Scammed By A Silicon Valley Startup

#600

Post by ryguytilidie »

wpietri wrote: post #595
ryguytilidie wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, is there a single shred of your being that believe that I was compelling this stranger to provide information...? We both know that you can't believe that, so why are you arguing your point as if you do...? What offends you so much that some stranger on the internet said that it was right for this information to be out in the open? Are you just completely desperate to argue with a stranger over nothing and…

Let's recap: A bunch of people were complaining about Penny's not naming names. I pointed out that she didn't do it for a reason. For her to do so could be very costly. I said that if people really wanted her to talk, they should offer to share in the costs by putting together a legal defense fund. You then responded by saying I couldn't be serious, and talking about "this person" (presumably kelukelugames) and wheth…

"The reason I objected is that when people take a gift and are immediately critical that the gift was not larger, it discourages the giving of gifts. If we want more whistleblowers, we must make sure their experience of whistleblowing is a positive one. If all they hear is, "Y U NO GIVE MOAR", that is not a positive experience. I think it's particularly important here because this instant entitlement is a perennial problem for open source project maintainers."

So basically you have a bunch of reasons why you're upset about this but none have even a remote relationship to the topic at hand? Because you feel open source software maintainers have a certain problem, by logical extension we must be facing the exact same thing in this totally different situation.

Post reply on HN