Not being an asshole will make you more money • Hacker News Board

Re: Not being an asshole will make you more money

#311

Post by pc86 » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

jkaplowitz wrote: post #206

pc86 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this has been tried before and they typically end in one of three outcomes: 1) It was a mistake and it doesn't go to court. 2) It was intentional and it doesn't go to court because the attorney, while still being a piece of shit, understands what option 3 is. 3) It was intentional, it goes to court, and you produce the email evidence showing the attorney agreed to changeset N then sent along changeset N-1, and…

Do those outcomes hold up if the innocent party caught the mistaken/bad-faith change before signing and knowingly proceeded to sign anyway? Everything you said makes sense if it goes unnoticed until after signing, but I'm less sure about that scenario. Probably varies by jurisdiction, at least when both parties are well-resourced and sophisticated.

I think if you can prove both parties knew of the change prior to signing it's by definition signed in good faith.

Re: Not being an asshole will make you more money

#312

Post by pc86 » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #298

rs23296008n1 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name one. Genuinely interested. Most legal systems are broken in some way to some extent. Unfair cases exist because people aren't perfect, make mistakes and/or have agendas.

Finland/Sweden. I'm not saying they perfect, or that they have no flaws. I'm saying they are not actively poisonous, such as in US. I think it's related to how weaponized the legal system in US is compared anywhere else

What does "actively poisonous" mean in this context? You've used that phrase numerous times as if we should know exactly what you're referring to.

Re: Not being an asshole will make you more money

#313

Post by filoleg » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

throwaway55554 wrote: post #308

filoleg wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreed. Simply said, not everyone has the chops to do it, not even mentioning luck. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have a demand/supply graph for software engineers in the US so screwed up, given how much pay one can get and how few credentials are required for it, especially compared to other similarly paying jobs. Not saying that those situations are perfectly comparable at all, just trying to make a point…

Well, to be fair, I said "more" not "everyone". Also, if it were true that people could be "self-made", we'd see a more diverse selection of "self-made" people. Instead, we see races and genders that aren't doing anywhere near as well as other races and genders.

If you think about diversity in terms of "races and genders", then I agree with you, there could be more of that.

If you think in terms of financial upbringing, we got a lot of diversity going. US has an insane turnover in terms of wealth, with a really high number of first gen millionaires and billionaires. Also note the fact that 70% of families losing wealth just a generation or two down the road[0]. Which is imo a very good thing, as it brings more evidence and support for the "self-made" theory.

In terms of social upbringing, just look at the numbers of top-tier CEOs and founders who are children of immigrants or immigrants themselves[1].

0. https://money.com/rich-families-lose-wealth/

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/us-tech-companies-founded-by...

Re: Not being an asshole will make you more money

#314

Post by chrisbennet » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 1:06 PM UTC

fred_is_fred wrote: post #310

chrisbennet wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers are good tool in our business. If someone gives me a one page "mutual NDA" I can handle it myself. If I get 9 pages of "our standard contract" and I read it through, ask if I can make changes and if they say yes, I give it to my lawyer. For that contract I actually wrote back this: Who signs these “standard contracts”?

I was thinking of the legal ambiguity of reply with "but yeah, no". Perhaps you were paraphrasing.

When you have they whole email, there isn't any ambiguity. :-)

This is the whole email:

"Hi Guys,

Who signs these “standard contracts”?

4.2. In the event the Provider is in breach of any of the representations or warranties set forth in Section 4.1 above, in addition to any other remedies IPG may have under this Agreement, IPG, at its sole option and without incurring any liability, may: (d) Recover any and all actual, incidental and consequential damages to IPG, including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs;

Nice try but yeah, no. ;-)

If I can strike out the unreasonable parts we can probably come to some agreement.

-Chris"