101–110 of 232 posts
I find it shocking that someone thought it was a good idea to list a flat on airbnb that they're only renting themselves. Largely in England subletting is not allowed under the terms of rental agreements.
Bribes are generally illegal. This should be "compensates," not "bribes." "Bribes" is just hyperbole. This is standard practice for a lot of businesses in a similar space.
We put quotes around that word in the title. I'll add an explanation here in a bit. Edit: ok, here's an explanation. We put quotes around "bribes" because that's the tiniest intervention I can think of that still addresses your concern. Why so tiny? That takes a while to explain, so read on if you want to understand how we approach this. The title breaks the HN guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, if some chooses to live next to a hotel then that's there choice. If a unlicensed hotel opens next to them (i.e. an airbnb rental) then they have been impinged on.
That's a slippery slope; if my neighbors plant tulips and I HATE tulips, I don't get to sue for damages, even if the tulips weren't there when I moved in.
www.airbnbhell.com Lots of crazy stories! Their business model seems to rely on people willing to roll the dice on their safety and security to save (or earn) a few bucks! It will undoubtedly survive this little blip of negative publicity, but people really need to be wary of this organization's complete lack of customer service (when things go bad).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. "which came to a total cost of around £6,400 (about $8,000)" (from TFA). I'm arguing more for $50k+. The GBP/USD difference isn't significant. (For anything less than $10k or so, as long as it was at all substantiated, AirBNB should just pay -- at worst, ban the host. The PR hit from this article is probably $500k already?)
> I'm arguing more for $50k+. [...] The PR hit from this article is probably $500k already? But if they've done this 12+ times, and "saved" ~$42k each time, then they're still ahead. It wouldn't surprise me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure what you're alluding to I have no opinion on the matter, but clearly the OP is alluding to the fact that HN will bury negative stories about their investments.
That first tweet is about Uber. Uber is not a YC investment. It's also one of the most heavily discussed topics on HN, so it's hard to understand what's being claimed there. The idea that HN "buries stories about [YC] investments" is one some people assume must be true—as you did, for example, in your use of the word 'fact' above. But the truth is the opposite. When stories are negative about YC or YC-funded companie…
This email exchange reads like something from Black Mirror. https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/emailexchang... It's amazing he didn't go and firebomb AirBnB. This kind of communication would leave me incandescent with rage.
Then at the end they try to low-ball him on what realistically was probably a tenth of what he seemed to have due (by that stage), giving him a short time-limit - what was it, 24 hours? - to click a button to accept the minimal offer or to "agree" to nothing.
That sort of vile behaviour deserves a company to be sued to within a penny of it's existence IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That first tweet is about Uber. Uber is not a YC investment. It's also one of the most heavily discussed topics on HN, so it's hard to understand what's being claimed there. The idea that HN "buries stories about [YC] investments" is one some people assume must be true—as you did, for example, in your use of the word 'fact' above. But the truth is the opposite. When stories are negative about YC or YC-funded companie…
This might be a new policy now that you're the head moderator, but the reason this complaint pops up every time there's a negative post about a YC company is because for several years there was a noticeable, nearly 100% correlation between "negative post about a YC company" and "gone from the front page within 3 hours despite dozens or even hundreds of upvotes."
I doubt these complaints pop up because of years ago, though. People just assume that's how it works whether it does that way or not, and confirmation bias does the rest, i.e. we notice the data points that match our assumptions much more than ones that don't. Plus it's fun to trade those with others who share the same view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That first tweet is about Uber. Uber is not a YC investment. It's also one of the most heavily discussed topics on HN, so it's hard to understand what's being claimed there. The idea that HN "buries stories about [YC] investments" is one some people assume must be true—as you did, for example, in your use of the word 'fact' above. But the truth is the opposite. When stories are negative about YC or YC-funded companie…
This might be a new policy now that you're the head moderator, but the reason this complaint pops up every time there's a negative post about a YC company is because for several years there was a noticeable, nearly 100% correlation between "negative post about a YC company" and "gone from the front page within 3 hours despite dozens or even hundreds of upvotes."
Say what you want about anybody else at YC, but Dan is one of the most trustworthy people in show business. If he says a story didn't get suppressed by the mods, bank on that.
Bribes are generally illegal. This should be "compensates," not "bribes." "Bribes" is just hyperbole. This is standard practice for a lot of businesses in a similar space.
We put quotes around that word in the title. I'll add an explanation here in a bit. Edit: ok, here's an explanation. We put quotes around "bribes" because that's the tiniest intervention I can think of that still addresses your concern. Why so tiny? That takes a while to explain, so read on if you want to understand how we approach this. The title breaks the HN guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines…