My startup offers better benefits than any of those, and better salary, with the caveat that we're pre IPO/exit/whatever so you can't turn around and sell the vested stock immediately like you can at those companies.
Point is: not all startups have non comparable benefits.
Their ability to win business is based on their expertise at writing responses to RFPs in a successful way, not in their ability to deliver. Also, they do have a few successful projects, to some standard of success, which they point to in the RFP responses as a "successful" track record. Often the ability to point to an almost perfectly analogous project and writing the responses in the "correct" way is all it takes.
"writing responses to RFPs in a successful way" really means "successfully identifying decision-makers at top levels and brib-- 'charm' them into compliance", often even "dictating how RFPs should be written so that they will be the only ones who know exactly how to reply to them in the only acceptable way".
Arguably the larger problem is that you (general "you" as in people like you) think this could even be a thing, like you've just completely bought into your biases and didn't do any sort of research on the topic. Your original assertion that robbery under $1000 (or any robbery, really) becoming defacto uncriminalized is so beyond the pale I'm not sure how _anyone_ wouldn't just automatically think they were being mislead or trolled, but somehow your biases or whatever on the subject caused you to not only unquestionably accept such a wild claim, but to repeat it to others.
There's a positive expected value to such positions, specifically espoused on a place like Hacker News. Among venture backed businesses there's affirmative action for that kind of right leaning thinking.
> ...unquestionably accept such a wild claim
For people who don't read or, apparently, Google for five seconds, verisimilitude and truth are the same thing. To be fair, that's true of everyone who doesn't read, not just libertarians.
imagemagick is close for me, but I do use ffmpeg and magick often, but as others have said feel as though I have to relearn each as soon as I have do something nonbasic.
Largely NFTs are an astroturfing job similar to crypto coins and things of that nature. Look at HN and search for NFTs. You'll see that there are a handful of articles years ago, but the vast, vast majority of articles/stories posted on NFTs in the last two weeks. Same on clubhouse, nothing that I recall on NFTs for a year, now at any given time there's a plethora of rooms with scare tactics titles like "Get in on NFTs now or the future will leave you behind" or "Become a millionaire with NFTs."
Not saying there's not some use for them, but this pattern is a huge red flag that there's a pump and dump style thing going on behind the scenes. ICOs and other cryptocurrency shared and share the same pattern.
That can easy be explained by their adoption by the rich and famous. Art NFTs were only made by niche artists until recently.
Now that they're somewhat mainstream yet not well understood by the public I would be more suprised if people weren't preaching it as the best thing since sliced bread.
Correct. I've been a member for going on a year now and I have scores of invites I don't appear to be able to send because I won't share my contacts. Not that I care enough to invite people, but it's a dark pattern to even require it.
I have heard there's a way to share invites without sharing contacts, but I haven't cared enough to even do a cursory search on that.
unsync your contacts from whatever service provider you're using, make sure they're gone, go ahead and share the contacts (which are now empty) with Clubhouse, get the invites, then revert everything back?
One can care about fundraising for their startup and care about raising untainted money without it being one's primary concern. Then you move the goalposts a little more and essentially say that you shouldn't be concerned with funding sources at all. The latter point especially seems amoral.
It's all a bit of a straw man. I'm curious what motivations are backing your reasons for advocating for this position?
I just think that all big money is tainted and founders should be honest about what they're raising when they raise, so there aren't surprises later. If one reads the Panama Papers, this comes into very clear detail.
I guess I should add a bit more color here, which is I also don't necessarily think of this tainting as a purely moral question, as I believe it's also a logistical one. The more money is being managed by a fund, the more likely it is that some nefarious utilizations of it will come into the picture. I think of it a lot like the law of large numbers.
These comments are fascinating and suddenly make me realize how important Thomas Galludet was for the deaf and hence the name of his eponymous university.
