Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office • Hacker News Board

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#221

Post by rooshdi » Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 10:04 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #197

rooshdi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it takes money to say fuck you to your boss, money's already fucked you.

You're missing the point. The point is that FU money is the point at which you have enough that you can walk away from situations that you don't agree with without that impacting the rest of your financial life in any manner. In other words, it's retirement but at a younger age. It's not to say you don't walk away from situations you don't agree with before you have FU money. It's just that you're at a point where it…

I'm not arguing about the opportunities money provides in this capitalistic society. I'm arguing about the power it holds over some people's moral decisions.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#222

Post by bdonlan » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 7:26 AM UTC

727374 wrote: post #170

ChuckMcM wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it absolutely was against policy to short your own stock for just those reasons. At the time I had a restricted stock grant (pre-owned but you 'vest' over time) and ISO options, also vesting. If I had a been a bit more clever I could have sold a 'put' option on all those shares. Not worth as much as actually selling the shares would have been of course. But really there are two points here: 1) People with a lot of…

Selling a put is a long position. If you meant buying a put, I'd assume that's against policy too. Or else that's a really simple loophole. I totally agree with point #1 though. People should be able to diversify their risk.

Actually, writing (selling) a put is the short position. Buying is the long position; you profit if the value of the put goes up (which happens when the value of the underlying stock goes down or is expected to go down).

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#223

Post by meepmorp » Sun, Nov 04, 2012, 11:43 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #158

meepmorp wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Definition of a game per Google: > A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Resorting to a dictionary definition to argue a point is nearly always a sign you've got a weak argument. But in this case, I want to point out the "esp." just after the first comma in the definition you cite. It means especially. In context, that means that games nee…

>Resorting to a dictionary definition to argue a point is nearly always a sign you've got a weak argument. Or a sign that your opponent is redefining words to fit their argument instead of using the commonly accepted one. Are you telling me it's unfair to refer to an authoritative source as to the meaning of a word? In any case, there has to be some kind of definition or else the word becomes meaningless. By defining…

> Are you telling me it's unfair to refer to an authoritative source as to the meaning of a word?

Unfair, no. A sign that the argument is weak, yes. Particularly in this case.

Also, use is meaning. Dictionaries are authoritative only in the sense that they capture current use at the time of publication. Even in that case, they're often lacking in some word senses and/or connotation because they don't exist in the writer's dialect.

>By defining Farmville as a "game", you could just as easily define twiddling numbers on an Excel sheet as a "game".

Are you twiddling the numbers as a form of play? Then yes, that'd be a game according to the definition given above. Games don't need to be challenging, or even all that entertaining.