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

A note from Keith

keithrabois.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: A note from Keith

#81

Post by rsobers »

jjb123 wrote: post #21

Am I the only one that was confused about that last line of "already working on something new and hope to announce that in February"... He's gone through something as traumatic as a lawsuit, a resignation, potential for trial, potential embarrassment of family, friends, colleagues all in the last two weeks... And his sign-off is that he has, in the midst of it all, already begun to work on a new startup?

I honestly felt that statement to be out of place, too. It caught me off guard. While it's admirable that he's not going to let the lawsuit prevent him from continuing his life, I think he could have saved that line for a separate blog post. Not a big deal, just found that it took a bit a way from the serious message he was delivering.

Re: A note from Keith

#82

Post by morganb180 »

jjb123 wrote: post #21

Am I the only one that was confused about that last line of "already working on something new and hope to announce that in February"... He's gone through something as traumatic as a lawsuit, a resignation, potential for trial, potential embarrassment of family, friends, colleagues all in the last two weeks... And his sign-off is that he has, in the midst of it all, already begun to work on a new startup?

It feels like his way of saying "Don't worry, I'm ok, I'll be back..."

I agree that it feels tacked on there. Probably would've been better to close with a "thanks for all of the support and understanding..." and wrap it up.

Re: A note from Keith

#83

Post by mbell »

I am wildly confused.

Who is bringing this lawsuit?

The person he had the relationship with?

If not, who else and why/how would they have any grounds to do so?

EDIT: It appears the relationship ended in December (http://allthingsd.com/20130125/exclusive-interview-keith-rab...).

I guess that that opens up the options for who was possibly behind it and what the possible motivation was.

Re: A note from Keith

#84

Post by rdl »

OMG, that is so fucked up. I can't imagine what Keith is feeling right now. I am sure this will get resolved as well as possible, but even if everything is dropped, it's a huge distraction for him.

Keith is an excellent human being and I am confident he acted appropriately (with the exception of being too trusting of this guy, and recommending him for Square, which was probably a mistake, but not a malicious act, rather an overly-generous act).

I am confident I would react much more poorly in this situation.

Re: A note from Keith

#85

Post by danilocampos »

newbie12 wrote: post #78
danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

Wrong order. He had a romantic relationship, THEN recommended him to Square for a job (without disclosing the relationship). Not an impossible position at all-- more of an abuse of trust.

That seems an overly salacious interpretation. You're reading from the same text that said he had nothing to do with the hiring.

Recommending someone with technical skills work at your startup only crosses a line when you're both porking them and directly making the hiring decision, which if we're taking this at face value, didn't happen.

Re: A note from Keith

#86

Post by jonchris »

danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

my opinion: having physical relationships other than wife (whom even one is married to) is a sin.

Re: A note from Keith

#87

Post by johndevor »

danilocampos wrote: post #34
johndevor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjected to legal harassment.

There's so much implicit wrongness in your statement my mind doesn't know where to lock on to respond. Sorry. edit: I figured it out. You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. If something happened here that is against the law, I am heartened that a legal framework exists t…

I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here. Is the author being intentionally vague about what really happened? Was Square harmed? Was a third party harmed?

You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs.

Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand!

Re: A note from Keith

#88

Post by shardling »

newbie12 wrote: post #78
danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

Wrong order. He had a romantic relationship, THEN recommended him to Square for a job (without disclosing the relationship). Not an impossible position at all-- more of an abuse of trust.

That's not quite his story either -- his claim is that he suggested to his romantic partner that they apply at Square, and was not involved at all in the actual hiring.

Re: A note from Keith

#89

Post by tlogan »

danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position.

If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.

Re: A note from Keith

#90

Post by smalter »

danilocampos wrote: post #85
newbie12 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong order. He had a romantic relationship, THEN recommended him to Square for a job (without disclosing the relationship). Not an impossible position at all-- more of an abuse of trust.

That seems an overly salacious interpretation. You're reading from the same text that said he had nothing to do with the hiring. Recommending someone with technical skills work at your startup only crosses a line when you're both porking them and directly making the hiring decision, which if we're taking this at face value, didn't happen.

True, but I think the point stands: it's not an impossible position, because the partner never had to work at Square in the first place. If he can get a job at Square, he could most likely get a job anywhere in SF/the Valley.
Post reply on HN