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

So Close

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#211

Post by amazingman »

brucephillips wrote: post #202
amazingman wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question makes it hard to believe you’re of adult age. Just about any adult should be able to imagine reasonable circumstances in which they could make “six figures” and still struggle to (e.g.) make rent.

This is almost the definition of bad adulting. If you make six figures, there's so many ways to live in the US within your means. Of course you can create difficult circumstances for yourself by paying 4k in rent as the sole provider, but this is irresponsible.

That’s a nice hill and all, but you don’t have to die on it.

Re: So Close

#212

Post by twblalock »

_aarti wrote: post #149
twblalock wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what if he wasn’t there the entire time? Why are you trying to attack his credibility?

I mean - think about, would you listen to someone who had given 3+ years of blood/sweat to a company and product vs 3 months. The shutdown was mishandled, we all felt the pain. Most of all the contractors and I wish I could pay them. I would if I had the money. But I am also looking for a job.

> I mean - think about, would you listen to someone who had given 3+ years of blood/sweat to a company and product vs 3 months.

I think both people would be worth listening to. The one who was there for three months would probably have a very different perspective on the corporate culture and management, by virtue of not having worked there long enough for those things to seem normal.

This is the same reason some companies get value from bringing in outside consultants -- their different perspective enables them to recognize aspects of the business that have not occurred to the long-term insiders.

Re: So Close

#213

Post by _aarti »

john_moscow wrote: post #206
_aarti wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The product was built in China on the same lines that build the iPhone with the same detail. Manufacturing quality hardware is capital intensive, Finding people who can support that level of engineering is capital intensive, Hiring security engineers is capital intensive, they chose to go all in. The company was not wasting money. I have worked in Silicon Valley startups with lavish spending. This was not one of them…

I dunno. Going all in before you have validated the product/market fit sounds like a textbook rookie mistake. I don't understand how you can raise close to $50m while having a business aptitude of a 3 year old.

I mean - I don't know - this is the tech mecca of the world. If these VC's and Engineers don't have vision/mission to go all in, what chances does the rest of the world have to bet on hardware startups?

Re: So Close

#214

Post by _aarti »

twblalock wrote: post #212
_aarti wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean - think about, would you listen to someone who had given 3+ years of blood/sweat to a company and product vs 3 months. The shutdown was mishandled, we all felt the pain. Most of all the contractors and I wish I could pay them. I would if I had the money. But I am also looking for a job.

> I mean - think about, would you listen to someone who had given 3+ years of blood/sweat to a company and product vs 3 months. I think both people would be worth listening to. The one who was there for three months would probably have a very different perspective on the corporate culture and management, by virtue of not having worked there long enough for those things to seem normal. This is the same reason some com…

Right, and I would agree with you - we had outside consultants who worked alongside us, in iOS, in Firmware, in Cloud, in EE, in Security. We all worked as a team to put the last finishes on the product. Also, there were a lot of new employees as well. The whole SW QA team was hired this year.

We did not know about insolvency - no one did - except the leadership team, or many would have raised concerns or left. Maybe this was the fear. Who wants to acquire a company where people are jumping ship.

We wanted the product in people's hands. Heck, it's on my door at home.

I also would say that this employee has the right air his grievances. I disagree with his criticism of the product and the company's mission and vision. I believe - there was no malice. There was mismanagement.

Re: So Close

#215

Post by Terr_ »

bambax wrote: post #109
Casseres wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love ≠ Trust For example if I love a junkie, I wouldn't want to enable that person to easily enter my house to steal something to pawn for drugs.

Love == Trust -- or we really disagree about love, so much in fact, we might as well use different words.

> Love == Trust

Simple counterexample: An aged parent with severe Alzheimers. Maybe it's not OK for them to have unfettered access to the car.

You want oversight/control/verification because you love them, not despite it.

Re: So Close

#216

Post by kevinburke »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #209
kevinburke wrote: post #130

I worked on Otto's server side software as a contractor for five months. The company had some servers written in C and exchanging messages using a custom binary protocol, designed for millions of transactions per second, when they needed only 2-3tps, readability, and the ability to make fast changes. We rewrote those servers in Go, found and fixed consistency errors in them, and actually got to the point where you co…

In the UK, the situation you described is called 'wrongful trading', and company directors can be held personally liable: https://www.icaew.com/archive/library/subject-gateways/law/i... Is there any similar thing in the US?

As I understand it, not really, unless management or the board were freely mixing personal and company assets, for example using a company credit card to pay personal expenses. No evidence that took place here.

Reading the law at the link, it says you’re only liable if there was no “reasonable chance” of avoiding insolvency. The sale they were pursuing would have provided enough cash to pay debts so I don’t think it would even pass that test. Poor management is not a crime, unfortunately.

Re: So Close

#217

Post by bambax »

anonfunction wrote: post #186
codinghorror wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the marshmallow experiment.

I'm wondering how this is relevant, when I looked at the wiki article[1] it seems to be about delayed gratification. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

Yes, the marshmallow experiment is avout self control and not trust or love.

Re: So Close

#218

Post by t3chn0SchO0lbus »

nedwin wrote: post #162
brucephillips wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: What normal circumstances would lead to anyone making six figures being broke that doesn't involve bad adulting?

Paying off student loans, medical bills, emergency car repairs... basically anything that might deplete an emergency fund or where you might have dipped into this on the assumption your job wasn’t about to be made redundant.

Children.

Re: So Close

#219

Post by bambax »

anonfunction wrote: post #185
bambax wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> May I ask if you have kids? Yes you may. I have 3 (8-9-12). I don't "trust" them to not eat candy that I said they shouldn't eat, but I do trust them not to kill me in my sleep -- which is what trust is about (IMHO). In fact I think I trust them more than I love them, and I love them a lot. But sometimes I'm upset with them. Being upset or angry doesn't affect trust. Trust is a kind of binary quality that is either…

So I guess you don't believe in "unconditional love"? I just can't imagine not loving my kids even if I knew I could not trust them. Another example would be family with mental illness to such a degree you may actually fear they will kill you in your sleep, but hopefully they would be placed in a safer environment and still have their families love and support.

I do believe in unconditional love -- in fact it's my whole point. How can you not trust your kids?

The case of mental imparemeent is interesting and I had not considered it. It would be possible to argue that the person isn't there anymore if they're crazy, and there needs to be someone to exercise love against. I'm not sure.

Also, maybe persons with mental illnesses could be trusted more in our society.

Re: So Close

#220

Post by bambax »

bambax wrote: post #132
Casseres wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love ≠ Trust For example if I love a junkie, I wouldn't want to enable that person to easily enter my house to steal something to pawn for drugs.

If you love someone you should be willing to give anything up. Anything. Morals, country, God, anything -- let alone, property. If not, that's ok but it's not "love" in my book.

Maybe the above comment is unclear. By "let alone" I mean "including, of course", not "excluding".
Post reply on HN