The article is fiction. The company launched less than a year ago. The founder claims that the company has had more than 100 clients, in less than a year? Pure marketing fiction — I doubt more than 10% of this article is true.
Could be fiction. But could also be that the people that launched the company have contacts going many years back prior. Not every company is started from zero.
I may be wrong, but I think the alleged victim writes a financial column at one of the pretty big houses. And covered scams before. I would be really surprised if that person stuffs $50k in cash into a shoebox for an "undercover CIA agent".
Sorry if I confused this story with something else.
thanks, you got the story right! It does sound crazy, but that also seems to be the point: scam victims are shamed and it's worth level setting on how "it can happen to anyone" because there's very sophisticated psychological warfare going on here.
An optimistic outlook is that we have the knowledge and resources to adapt to a changing environment without loss of life. A realistic counter to that is if we were able to utilise these resources and knowledge effectively then we wouldn’t have found ourselves in this situation. An outlook that splits the difference is… we’ve made mistakes but maybe crisis is what’s required to get everyone working together using our resources and knowledge for the greater good.
A sad outlook is that we are all rich people living charmed lives that are not at risk so we can bury our heads in the sand. We aren’t the people who will die from our mistakes.
that probably, that given you are on HN commenting, in comparison to most of the world you might be perceived of as "rich" - can not of course be sure you might only make 2000 dollars a month, but it seems relatively unlikely.
It's generally a bad idea to assume that a specific person to whom you are replying is "representative" of some average you believe is true for a particular population. Furthermore, most people seem to have ideas about HN demographics that are inaccurate.
You probably missed how I started off my statement with "that probably" they might be perceived of as rich by much of the world where $1,480 PPP dollars a month is the average.
Also the poll you linked would seem to agree with my position that much of HN is probably significantly above that wage point and might be thought of as rich.
Finally if you believe something is representative of a population and you are correct in that belief then statistics tells us that it is probably a good idea to assume that a specific person drawn from that group is most likely to possess that representative property. However to be polite you should probably start off with some words like "probably" to catch the outliers who do not possess the representative quality.
Story after story after story suggests that one of the biggest problems that "minority" groups have is being the woman or the black guy in charge at work and people assuming their white male underling is the boss because he's white and male and that's "the norm."
Erring on the side of betting that a specific individual is whatever you feel is "the norm" helps keep social problems alive.
In the US and many other countries, that amount of money doesn't constitute "rich." It will not pay your rent, make sure you eat etc. Acting like poor people in the US have it overall better than someone in some other country because they are American is a really lousy argument. It's a subtle way to dismiss the very real problems of a lot of people in developed countries.
The poll I linked to shows that HN has people from all over the world. People seem to think it's mostly programmers in California and New York and there are certainly plenty of people that fit that demographic. There are also lots of others who do not.
And every comment that asserts that if you are on HN, you must be a well-heeled programmer only makes it that much harder to everyone here who isn't such to express themselves effectively and feel comfortable representing a different point of view.
Your comment essentially is a personal attack on someone based on your opinions of the "averages" of this forum with no real data. And the more comments like that get to stand, the more likely it is that people who aren't well-heeled programmers from developed countries will feel silenced and unwelcome here. It doesn't make your assumptions true but it does make it more likely that they will appear to be true and that harms meaningful, constructive discussion.
Given the "scientific" framing of the guidelines and search for truth -- for something meaningful and real and how to have useful conversations about that -- which shapes discussion here, I think this is a really problematic thing to do.
>The poll I linked to shows that HN has people from all over the world. People seem to think it's mostly programmers in California and New York and there are certainly plenty of people that fit that demographic. There are also lots of others who do not.
Almost all of the people self-reporting locations in the poll you linked to were from places where the average wage is significantly higher than $1488 PPP per month. When you count up how many people are coming from those places where the average wage is significantly higher than the average global PPP wage it is pretty highly concentrated people earning more than the global average.
Are there people who don't match that, sure, which is why I said probably. Probably evidently isn't a good enough word for you.
You also get lots of people on this site making significantly more than poor people the world over make who complain about their finances. To anyone making the average global wage I am unimaginably rich but I'm doing quite poorly from my own viewpoint.
Your high moral stature essentially means that kind of thing can't be discussed either.
Ok well if you are not making more than 1480 dollars a month by a significant amount - like 800 dollars more a month would be significant to someone making 1480 - then sorry for my mistake but it's true the population of this site generally have much greater revenue than 1480 dollars a month.
I certainly would feel weird if people described me as rich, but on the other hand in comparison to a lot of people I probably am.
Either you’re misunderstanding closet to mean a built-in wardrobe or… I don’t know what other explanation there could be. American closets (i.e: a whole room of 100+ square feet, dedicated to storage of clothes) just don’t exist in “normal” European flats/apartments/homes. You’d be an outlier if you have an American-style closet in Europe. Regardless of how much you’re spending, they just don’t exist in >95% of properties.
You’re arguing that a younger audience would never care for what critics have to say, in which case, Pitchfork was doomed to die regardless of the choices they made: if you’re not bringing in a new audience, you’re dying, because of churn.
Perhaps wokeness hastened the loss of the old audience but evolving to meet the changing tastes of your potential audience is important, otherwise, you’re setting a date for your death.
That said, I don’t think it was a cynical attempt to ride a trend but rather evolution in response to the writers and editors evolving in their understanding of music and the world. After all, Pitchfork was always a representation of the tastes of the writers and editors. Of all the people you’d expect to be at the forefront of cultural evolution, writers about culture are up there.
Audm was an article narration service which was eventually acquired by the New York Times. The service is now part of the NYT but still narrates articles across many publications — including the New Yorker.
it’s trivial to avoid. Do not accept instructions outside of the standard instruction channels. The only reason this scheme works is because of bad processes, bad training or a culture of fear (where employees feel compelled to comply with any demand regardless of process for fear of losing their job).
If an employee routinely receives email or zoom instructions to transfer $25m without any sort of sign off then the company is completely at fault for terrible process.
> Do not accept instructions outside of the defined company processes
Most non-enterprise companies have fairly loose wire protocols. That said, outgoing phone calls to two separate signers is a good, simple best practice.
The standard instruction channels are so reliably shit, nobody bats an eye if they get an email saying ”Teams is on the fritz again, please join us on Zoom instead”
That’s not true. The jurisdiction that your business operates in doesn’t change depending on where you’re located. If you’re running a business without a business entity (why?) then you can use a merchant of record service (like Paddle) which will serve that role for you.
“The most similar existing status is usually used by tourists, does not allow work and allows a maximum stay of just 90 days”
I don’t think that’s correct. A tourist visa doesn’t allow you to work locally but they do not limit working remotely for an overseas company. For example, if you’re on vacation in Japan from the US and an emergency happens at work, you can join a call without risk of deportation.
Authorities won't be running after you, or a digital nomad traveling by bike the country while working on his blog. But those are still violation of the tourist status, they're just too small to be cared about.
It would be another story if you published a movie shot in Japan while on a tourist visa.
Why are they a violation of the tourist status? A tourist is someone who brings money in to the local economy, that’s why tourists are coveted. If a person visits Japan for a week and spends $2000 on a hotel and $1000 on activities, why would the Japanese government change their view of the trip if that tourist was also taking zoom calls from their hotel room?
There’s the belief we all apparently hold that tourism isn’t tourism if you take a laptop, but nobody can evidence such a rule because it’s apparently an implied rule: maybe we can get to the bottom of it by asking why, what explanation / reason would there be for such a rule? Why does taking zoom calls from your hotel room change the nature of your trip?
No, this is the correct interpretation in a lot of countries, you are performing paid work there regardless of who and where the employer is.
Emergencies are all well and good, but turning up at the immigration desk and saying you don’t plan on working when you actually do will lead to trouble in a lot of places.
In what places has it led to trouble for tourists to work remotely in their hotel rooms or Airbnbs? Leaving aside cases when those tourists brought that trouble and scrutiny on themselves through other actions like getting into barfights or shoplifting.
I'm not taking a position on its legality. In most cases that's undefined because the law did not anticipate this situation and it's never been tested in court.
They obviously can't prohibit people from checking emails or taking work calls while on vacation, because that means the end of big-spending tourists.
Nobody has drawn a red line at a magic point along the continuum from one emergency work call during a two-week holiday, to 9 hours a day in a hotel room hunched over a computer. Where would it be, and why does that particular point maximize benefit for the host country?
This is not how the US judicial system works. We are innocent until proven guilty. In the case above, to say it is illegal even though it was not proven violates the above. Also, many “laws” aren’t technically codified but instead have been established by precedent, and no precedent is hard and fast. Technically you could argue both the things you mentioned above in court and win, rendering your actions legal.
There is a difference between de jure and de facto.
Defacto, going 61mph in a 60 is legal practically everywhere. De jure, it's not (the law is on the books).
Same as jaywalking. It's more of a law to pass responsibility in an accident (i.e. if you were jaywalking and got hit by a motor vehicle - you are at fault because of jaywalking. Jaywalking itself is very rarely prosecuted as a standalone thing)
The Temporary Visitor Visa is for activities not exceeding 90 days as follows:
tourism, visiting relatives or friends, recreation, convalescence, attending a conference, participation in unpaid lectures, meetings, amateur athletic meetings or other contests, short business trips (e.g. market surveys, business talks, after sales service for machinery imported into Japan)
This category excludes profit-making operations and paid activities. [1]
Usually, paid work means just that.
The thing of course is that you do remote paid work it is unlikely that anyone will notice, especially if you indeed only stay for a few weeks. Plus if business trips are ok, then I suppose noone will care.
That's implied. If you're working with your tourist visa you're changing the purpose of your stay and thus lying regarding your visa declaration:
> Single-entry short-term stay visa for the purpose of Tourism (for a period of up to 90 days) (Note).
> [...]
> If you wish to visit Japan for other purposes or for a long-term stay, please submit your application to the Japanese Embassy, Consulate General or Consular office with jurisdiction over your place of residence.
Setting aside my other response, a better way to look at it is that you declare your purpose on entry, but you're not the one judging if it's appropriate or not.
We/You can see remote work as not invalidating your claim, but that's just how we feel, not how it will be judged. To your larger point, the rules being mildly fuzzy aren't helping foreigners in general, it's usually more leeway for the authorities to pick and choose.
That's like saying your purpose is enjoying the scenery, because even if you're shooting a new photo book, you put your pleasure above all and taking professional photos while looking at the landscape is just a small detail.
I mean, we can invent a lot of way to present it, it all comes down to how the immigration office interprets it (as far as I know, the only real test is suing them when they ask for the money)
I'm not sure if there's a specific rule that says that explicitly, but you aren't allowed to work if you are in Japan on a tourist visa, and the government's opinion is that this includes remote work for a company outside of japan, so it doesn't really matter that there's no rule saying that explicitly.
That's also the whole reason for potentially introducing this new type of visa; if you were allowed to do remote work on a tourist visa, they wouldn't need to do this.
> I’m asking because I visit Japan on a tourist visa and I have never encountered this rule. I’d like to learn more about it from official sources.
Unfortunately, I don't think this a specific rule which makes it hard to point to a source, but you simply aren't allowed to work in any form if you are in Japan on a tourist visa, and from the government's perspective, this obviously includes remote work.
If you want some specific government opinion in writing saying that remote work is illegal under tourist visas under current law, after the government holds public comment, it usually publishes an interim report compiling the comments it has received along with analysis, and I imagine that in this case the report will note this, but right now I can't find an official document stating this. However, googling it, there are various opinions from law firms agreeing that it is illegal.
There is also no reason you would have "encountered" this because the only way you would be able to encounter it is if you somehow made the government aware that you were illegally working remotely and they deported you.
It's basically impossible for them to tell if you are working remotely though, so it's almost a moot point in most cases unless you specifically go out of your way to make the government aware.
> you simply aren't allowed to work in any form if you are in Japan on a tourist visa
You will never get the Japanese government to say this, if "any form" includes incidental remote work. And "incidental" is undefined and they aren't going to want to be pinned down on that either.
IANAL, but it's written in Immigration Act Article 19, Paragraph 1, No 2 (入管法19条１項２号)[1]. Here's a translation from Japanese Law Translation[2]^1
> Article 19 (1) Any foreign national who is a resident under a status of residence listed in the left-hand column of Appended Table I shall not engage in the activities set forth in the following items, with regard to the categories identified therein, except for cases where he/she engages in them with permission as set forth in paragraph (2) of this Article.
> (ii) A foreign national who is a resident with a status of residence listed in the left-hand column of Appended Tables I (3) and I (4): activities related to the management of a business involving income or activities for which he/she receives remuneration.
The quoted "Appended Table I (3)" (別表第一の三) says:
> Temporary Visitor
> Sightseeing, recreation, sports, visiting relatives, inspection tours, participating in lectures or meetings, business contact or other similar activities during a short stay in Japan.
None of this says "within Japan", which from my understanding is that it allows for the maximum interpretation of the law, i.e. "involving income or activities for which he/she receives remuneration [from anywhere]" with the noted activities in Appendix Table being the exception.
Either way, it depends on how immigration interpret the law.
When you get to the passport control desk and they ask you “business or pleasure”, you answer “business” and then depending on the arrangements between your home country and the country you’re entering they may need to you show them a business visa.
Well, it is clear that the understanding of Japan's government regarding working with a tourist visa is different than that and that it indeed didn't allow working even if remotely for an overseas company.
Otherwise, they wouldn't hassle themselves to introduce a new kind of Visa that is geared towards exactly this kind of situation.
A digital nomad visa serves an important purpose: it allows someone to stay in the country longer than as a tourist. The existence of a digital nomad visa bolsters the understanding that digital nomads are allowed to use a tourist visa.
A working visa is very difficult to get in most countries and requires local sponsorship because of the risk to the local economy — you’re potentially taking a local job from local people. Tourist visas are easy to get because there’s no risk: a tourist arrives, spends money, leaves. A digital nomad is a tourist by every measure.
The reason tourist visas are short is to ensure people don’t move to the country without permission. A digital nomad doesn’t present a risk to the local economy so bumping their length of stay is safe for the local economy, hence, digital nomad visas.
> you can join a call without risk of deportation.
Is that a definite interpretation of the law or just an in-practice one? I have had friends have issues are borders with this, albeit not with Japan. That countries feel the need to clarify this the world over tells me that this isn't totally settled.
This is what happens in practice, but in theory you're not supposed to live and work from somewhere without the appropriate visa. All German residents are expected to have a residence permit (if non-EU) and to pay taxes in Germany.
People say this but don’t understand the reason artists don’t make much per-listener on Spotify etc. is because of their record deals, it’s nothing to do with Spotify. If you’re an independent artist you can live comfortably off of a small Spotify audience!
The stories you hear about an artist getting pennies on millions of listens are because of their record deals and the credits on their work. You can’t solve this with software: artists enter these deals long before software is involved.
I’d argue that Spotify (and YouTube and TikTok etc) have done more for musicians because they’ve made it very easy to make a living when you have a core listener base. Software has not rescued major label artists from major label contracts because… how can it?
The artist signed a contract with a label. I was not party to that contract, I'm not bound by it. I can send them money if I wish.
If only they'd give me an address (of a smart contact which would distribute the funds appropriately. I want to pay the parties whose names I don't know also, provided they're involved in actually creating the art.)
I mean small relative to big artists, not small in absolute numbers. If you have less than 1k streams you probably have less than 50 listeners which is basically nothing.
A (relatively) small audience would be made up of tens of thousands of listeners generating millions of streams. There are many, many independent artists that fall into this group.
According to Spotify's data report site[0], there were 17,800 artists grossing over $50k from Spotify (7,800 being between 50k and 100k), out of a denominator of ~8 million, or 200k if you use Spotify's estimate of “professional or professionally aspiring”.
I don't know much at all about the music industry, so I don't really have a conclusion from those data, but that seems low. It also does put a (not insignificant) number on the independents accomplishing what you describe.
