71–80 of 314 posts
The major flaw in this article is that it does not defined what constitutes "asshole" behavior. There is a difference, for example, between being vindictive towards others, and simply pushing people out of their comfort zone. The term "asshole" is so vague that it borders on useless.
It's very clear what this article is getting at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure it wasn’t a genuine mistake?
No, I've had this happen when drawing up contracts with American lawyers way too many times for it to be mistakes. We've had lawyers try to sneak in one sided clauses after we agreed differently with business owners pretty much constantly. It always significantly deteriorated relations with that company. But I guess Americans think that's fine because "it's just business".
I have an example. In a previous role was in a position where we were negotiating a large-ish (>1M USD) multi-year contract when our client asked us to also do a proof of concept about some topic. It was just 1 week or 2 weeks so I said it would be free but because of various regulatory stuff we needed a contract in place. I was dealing with the same purchasing lawyer on both contracts. The process was super-standard…
The cable company’s attorneys changed several provisions that did not show up as redline changes, while intentionally making syntax and grammar errors that did show up as redline changes.
The major flaw in this article is that it does not defined what constitutes "asshole" behavior. There is a difference, for example, between being vindictive towards others, and simply pushing people out of their comfort zone. The term "asshole" is so vague that it borders on useless.
Even if you could come up with a good definition, it would still be a silly assertion. He’s wrong: not being an asshole won’t make you more money. Being an asshole will also not make you more money. How nice or not nice you are to other people is almost entirely unrelated to how much money you make.
Most of the billionaires are assholes and/or criminals with a couple of noteworthy exceptions. So maybe not being an asshole will get you ahead in the middle but it won't get you all the way to the top of the foodchain. So this is solid advice, but unfortunately the role models are exactly those people that didn't follow this sort of advice. Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Apple, Google and Facebook all would not have bee…
That's what bothers me about all the adoration "billionaires" are getting lately. These guys got where they are by taking advantage of whatever they could, not by being generous or nice.
It's better than lobbying because you don't need to convince people to do things your way if they like you.
I've noticed such activity in places as unexpected as imgur, reddit or HN. Posts boosted out of nowhere, waves of comments for a specific trend in their favor, accounts that are very quick to react to critics, etc.
It feels off, but on the other hand it's impossible to prove. You could always argue it's genuine and it would be impossible to be sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what bothers me about all the adoration "billionaires" are getting lately. These guys got where they are by taking advantage of whatever they could, not by being generous or nice.
It's not even that - people venerate the results of luck. For every "self-made" billionaire, there's untold legions of people who had nearly the extra same formula, but were just a little off. Sure, a lot of them worked hard and had good ideas, but so do tons of people. Somehow it's more acceptable to think these people earned their success more than a simple lottery winner, whose long hours and hard work at their ja…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by backing out all of our changes and only putting in his changes That so feels like a mistake because that's the sort of tactic that would completely and utterly remove their capability of ever working as a corporate lawyer ever again for any company. If that genuinely happened, that lawyer needs to be disbarred, but that's a pretty damn egregious accusation.
> That so feels like a mistake because that's the sort of tactic that would completely and utterly remove your capability of ever working as a corporate lawyer ever again for any company. No, that's basically SOP for big corporate lawyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I've had this happen when drawing up contracts with American lawyers way too many times for it to be mistakes. We've had lawyers try to sneak in one sided clauses after we agreed differently with business owners pretty much constantly. It always significantly deteriorated relations with that company. But I guess Americans think that's fine because "it's just business".
IANAL, but if you have correspondence indicating that you wanted something removed and both sides agreed to it, then I'd imagine you'd have a case in court if they slipped something in. Contracts are never 'iron-clad' -- for example, you cannot legally sign away your soul. Lots of stuff can be invalidated in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure it wasn’t a genuine mistake?
No, I've had this happen when drawing up contracts with American lawyers way too many times for it to be mistakes. We've had lawyers try to sneak in one sided clauses after we agreed differently with business owners pretty much constantly. It always significantly deteriorated relations with that company. But I guess Americans think that's fine because "it's just business".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once word gets around though, it starts to harm you in the long run. I worked for a company where one of the owners seemed to have a world view that everyone is trying to screw you over, so you better screw them over first. After I left I had a friend ask about the company, because they were about to a deal with them. I gave my honest opinion and suggested they be sure to get any money up front and be very careful to…
This kinda seems like a just world fallacy. It might get around, it might not - I'm not sure its really known either way. But we like to hope people that regularly behave like assholes eventually get punished for it.
The first group finds they eventually have to move to get back to progressing in their career (hopefully learning from their mistake). I've known guys who moved and did change, running into them again and finding them to be completely different people, settled into family life, and quite happy. I've known guys who moved and didn't change, found themselves needing to move again in 10 years, all while cursing the world for being against them.
The second group just never progresses in their careers. You see them try to move into positions that seemingly fit such behavior, like "serial entrepreneur" or "SEO consultant". They never really grow, always behaving like they're still in their early 20s. By the time they hit their 40s, they can't pick up chicks at bars anymore and it hits home that they've wasted their life. Unfortunately, I've never met anyone who changed and turned it around.
It does come around. It just takes longer than internet scale time.