Did my old job only exist because of fraud? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#441

Post by thegrimmest » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 1:52 PM UTC

worldthruword wrote: post #279

patkai wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Behind many, but I sincerely hope not "every". A trivial counterexample is Warren Buffet: he simply saved and invested. Or consider inventors with patents.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-generated-doub... https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2022746722191938017 Chamath explains Warren Buffett’s secret to success: “Markets thrive when there's information asymmetry” “Now I'm gonna get a lot of people really upset with me.” “This is an example of Warren Buffet's returns pre- and post-Reg FD. Now what do you see?” “His returns were double the market returns when…

I'm failing to see why any of this is immoral. Taking every (legal, nonviolent) advantage is called "doing business". We live in a competitive ecosystem. Under such conditions certain behaviours are emergent from the system. It creates the niches that make this behaviour optimal. If you don't want to be taken advantage of by a sharp, don't be a square.

I don't see how living in an ecosystem, complete with selective pressure, asymmetrical compounding advantage, etc. can possibly be immoral, since it's fundamentally inescapable.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#442

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #320

rayiner wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t have a duty to report, you don’t have a duty to report. You can’t predict what government prosecutors will do. If they start investigating and it turns out for whatever reason they can’t pin it on the boss, they could have pinned if on OP. Think about it logically. If you’re the prosecutor, the guy whose time is fraudulent is presumptively the criminal. It could very well be that he was actually the one…

Yours is unfortunately the attitude which breeds corruption, and also the attitude of the majority of people. "Not my problem", "not my duty", "covering my own ass", "not getting into trouble" and so on. The reptilian minded people like OPs boss love having you guys around, because they can't do their unethical schemes just by themselves, and you won't make a fuss. As for the prosecutor; he is first and foremost inte…

Look, you want people to get involved? Then it needs to be safe to do so. Recent history has demonstrated that whistleblowers have no such assurance. They risk damage to their reputation and future employment prospects; some even end up forced out their career of choice. This is how we reward them, and you expect people to just step up and fall on those swords?

Other commenters have pointed out that our justice system also lacks any means to determine how a particular case will play out. Personally, I would do everything in my power to avoid entanglement with the government, in any way shape or form. I am literally terrified of going to court for any reason, because Truth and Justice no longer have any place there; no, the Law sucks all the oxygen out of the room. If you think otherwise, then I would wager that you have never been through that system.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#443

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #186

tzs wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just knows that someone on HN who is not using their real name has described witnessing government fraud at some unspecified point in the past and reporting it to the head of the project. He doesn't have any information about where it occurred other than probably the United States. He's not really in a position to act usefully on this information, so had no reason to feel any culpability for not acting. It is only…

He can report the incident to digital crimes unit who can subpoena HN/YC for identity of the poster, and then they can take it from there. There is always something you can do — whether you are going to bother is an altogether a different matter.

Your really think this would be investigated? An uncorroborated story shared on online forum by an anonymous poster? You really think highly of authority, don’t you?

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#444

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

noisy_boy wrote: post #106

tasty_freeze wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ages ago, my girlfriend at the time worked for a company that routinely got SIBR (small business innovation research) grants. Such grants made up part of her total workload. The crazy thing was that if she worked for 10 hours on SBIR stuff, then worked 40 hours on her normal work stuff (so overtime), the SBIR billing would get scaled down to 8 hours (that is, 25% of 40 hours). There would be no way to bill 80 hours.…

Why not float a company to buy the tool and then let that company charge money to lease the tool to the using companies for the specific non-overlapping period instead of borrowing? Leasing can't be prohibited too?

There can be complicated tax implications. And standing up a new company has a fair bit of overhead.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#445

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:28 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #224

N_Lens wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your faith in the criminal justice system amuses me.

Abuses happen. But they are the exception, not the rule. There's no need to be so cynical and mocking about it.

I think you are flatly wrong. For example, our current system is abusive by coercing something like 90% of defendants into unfair plea deals instead of allowing them fair trials. Fair and speedy trials are a fundamental right, and that’s just one of many example of how the government has been systematically abusing its citizenry. That you think abuse is exceptional is mind-blowing when compared to my lived experience.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#446

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

fyredge wrote: post #31

idiotsecant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was your mistake. The grant recipient or department has as much incentive to fully spend the money as your consultant boss does to bill it. It's a implied understanding. Spend the budget or next time people will ask why you need all that money when you didn't spend it last time. Expensive projects are important projects. Important projects make careers. That is baked in several layers deep. You'd need to report…

> Spend the budget or next time people will ask why you need all that money when you didn't spend it last time. I've always heard of this nugget of wisdom but never really understood it. By punishing those who underspend (by making the next application harder), wouldn't you incentivise inflated research costs, or worse, fraud. Seems like a quick path to a positive feedback loop towards the degradation of trust in aca…

You are approaching the problem with upstanding ethics and morals. I think that’s the difference, because the outcomes you list are exactly what we get with the current system.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#447

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

wavemode wrote: post #300

worldthruword wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-generated-doub... https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2022746722191938017 Chamath explains Warren Buffett’s secret to success: “Markets thrive when there's information asymmetry” “Now I'm gonna get a lot of people really upset with me.” “This is an example of Warren Buffet's returns pre- and post-Reg FD. Now what do you see?” “His returns were double the market returns when…

You wrote this whole comment just to demonstrate that Warren Buffett is indeed following the law, like the parent commenter stated.

The law is not what determines right and wrong. Following the law can still result in unethical and immoral behavior. Exploitation of others through information asymmetry, whether illegal or not, is inherently wrong.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#448

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #441

worldthruword wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-generated-doub... https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2022746722191938017 Chamath explains Warren Buffett’s secret to success: “Markets thrive when there's information asymmetry” “Now I'm gonna get a lot of people really upset with me.” “This is an example of Warren Buffet's returns pre- and post-Reg FD. Now what do you see?” “His returns were double the market returns when…

I'm failing to see why any of this is immoral. Taking every (legal, nonviolent) advantage is called "doing business". We live in a competitive ecosystem. Under such conditions certain behaviours are emergent from the system. It creates the niches that make this behaviour optimal. If you don't want to be taken advantage of by a sharp, don't be a square. I don't see how living in an ecosystem, complete with selective p…

You seem like the type of person that will take advantage of others when a loophole law permits it. Sure, it may be legal, but it still makes you a bad person in my book.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#449

Post by cobbzilla » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

scrubs wrote: post #432

GJim wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be suggesting that fun hobbies which don't make money are a 'failure' rather than a success. Not everything is judged by how much money it makes. Have you ever wondered why kids climb trees?

This wasn't a hobby. At least the head engineer and sales persons were constantly stressed by flagging sales and lack of customer acceptance.

It wasn’t a hobby for them but it still may have been a hobby business for the founder. Rich dude LARPing tyrant CEO or Steve Jobs imitator is common.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#450

Post by thegrimmest » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:59 PM UTC

voakbasda wrote: post #448

thegrimmest wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm failing to see why any of this is immoral. Taking every (legal, nonviolent) advantage is called "doing business". We live in a competitive ecosystem. Under such conditions certain behaviours are emergent from the system. It creates the niches that make this behaviour optimal. If you don't want to be taken advantage of by a sharp, don't be a square. I don't see how living in an ecosystem, complete with selective p…

You seem like the type of person that will take advantage of others when a loophole law permits it. Sure, it may be legal, but it still makes you a bad person in my book.

Like most people, I treat people I know with a lot more kindness than people I don't. Whether most of us like to admit it or not, our actions demonstrate that we don't generally have much regard for distant strangers, no matter how profoundly they suffer and how much we benefit from it (see the conditions in which most of our goods are made). You can call that immoral, but rational self interest is absolutely normal human behaviour, and I'm not even a psychopath.

My point is that the niches exist to be exploited by the least scrupulous among us. As long as the niches exist, they will be exploited. Resenting that is akin to resenting the biggest fish in the pond for being so damn aggressive - it's pointless. We live in a pond, and we should focus on maintaining the nonviolent and often ecosystem-benefitting nature of the exploitation (since it is hard-won and precarious), rather than resent the inescapable reality of its existence.