freddyc

I just throw them away and buy my own regular potatoes to supplement.

Please don't do this if you can avoid it. I used to do the same (not with Blue Apron admittedly, but food in general) until I volunteered at our local food shelter one day and saw how they survived on donations some of which were surprisingly small. Often those small donations would be turned into snacks that people could take with them for sustenance throughout the night. They would never turn down healthy, nutritious food that wasn't spoiled. I realize it can be a PITA and there may not be a shelter near you, but if it's possible please consider it as an alternative to throwing good food away especially something that stores pretty well.

While I generally agree with your main point, I have witnessed engineers who espouse equality publicly until their own remuneration is the topic of discussion, at which point self-interest kicks in and "of course I should earn more than A, because x, y, z ..." becomes the private narrative.

While a lot of progress has been made in reducing the gender wage gap in tech, we still have a long way to go.

It's usually in the underlying option plan I believe. I think the challenge with changing the 90 day window is that you run the risk of the option not qualifying as an ISO. If that's the case, it would instead be classified as a non-qualified stock option and the holder would lose the capital gains benefits and be subject to ordinary income tax (IANAL though, so could be way off base).

I'd expect that in most high-growth companies the impact of individual contributors quickly gets washed away after they leave

I'd argue it's the opposite. Early employees often have an outsized impact on the trajectory of a company and get it to a point where additional hiring is possible. Future generations of workers tend to iterate on the existing (unless there's a significant pivot) and come on board in a more de-risked situation often with salaries much closer to market.

Most start-ups also present equity as a form of compensation for work performed (trading cash for illiquid options). To take away that earned and vested compensation component because an employee doesn't have the money to exercise within the 90 day is not only arbitrarily absurd but also grossly unfair in my opinion.

I think they started their life as a crowdfunding platform but then pivoted to focus on payments. I remember seeing their logo on the ESPN fantasy football site a year or so ago, so I assume they struck a partnership deal for leagues to collect their dues. As someone else has suggested above, the appeal to AirBnB is probably acquiring the tech to make it easier for large groups to split costs.

Unfortunately, he's probably not helping his cause by hanging around at this point. I'm sure he has his reasons - family, mortgage etc - but a lot of recruiters likely treat those who remained despite the damning revelations very differently to those who jumped as soon as the writing was on the wall.

Most assholes don't have that level of reflection so I'm not going to be too harsh

I think that's what differentiates your run-of-the-mill asshole from a sociopath.

While the author doesn't do a great job at eliciting sympathy (if that was even his goal?), I can imagine the weeks/months/years after an exit can be tough on someone who has invested so much of their personal worth in a single entity. I think certain personality traits thrive in the start-up founder world, but the things that make those people succeed also leave them susceptible to massive emotional lows once the story is over and the dream is realized.

Two general rules I follow:

1. You want me to indemnify you? Hahahahahaha. No.

2. You want to indemnify me? Sure, sounds good.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. I still value a lot of the work they did last year, but it's a great reminder to keep a critical eye on what I consume. Now, please don't tell me the WSJ and FT are guilty of the same offenses? I'm not sure I can handle that much disappointment in one day.

Why do you say that? Their political coverage and some of their deep-dive investigative pieces have been top drawer IMO.

Funnily enough, I'm also a subscriber of the FT! The app has the full newspaper ordered in the same way (Lex, The Big Read etc) and provides a pretty great experience for a digital consumer. It's not quite the same as having a hard copy in your hands, but for ease of access and portability - I can read it wherever I am in the world - it really is a fantastic product.

It's amazing how many people I know who have subscribed to the WaPo in the last 12 months. I know, I know - echo chamber - but it gives me great hope that quality news organizations have a future. If executed properly, most people are willing to pay for quality content (side note: a major pet peeve of mine is when you pay for a subscription and are then bombarded with obnoxious pop-up ads whenever you try to access said paid content online).

I've been a long-term WSJ subscriber and recently switched to the digital-only subscription due to the quality of their tablet app, but it remains a guilty pleasure of mine to buy up a selection of hard copy newspapers on a rainy weekend and lock myself away for hours.

Yes, I think that's the key distinction. Kodi is available (for example) in the Play Store so selling a box with it pre-installed is not illegal. However, if you go the extra step and include the piracy add-ons and (potentially) a subscription IPTV service then you've overstepped the line.

Want to know how I know AI is over-hyped? All of the VCs who were bullish on Bitcoin a few years back are now "thought leaders" on AI.

It's a little of both. If your employer doesn't cover 100% of the premium then your share is deducted from your pre-tax salary. Healthcare is often one of the factors up for negotiation in salary discussions. It's not a 1-to-1 ratio, but generally if you opt out of an employer's coverage you can try to use that to ask for a higher salary. I've found it's been far more successful the older I get! The reason is employers want young healthy people in their insurance census (young people are cheap to insure and lower the cost for everyone), not middle-aged people with kids.

I realize that the parent comment focused on Uber, but my concern is directed at the personalization of the post. This was posted under Travis' personal Facebook account. It was a statement by him to his employees that he chose to then release publicly (also look at his use of personal pronouns in places). If this were a statement released by Uber I would take less issue with it.

I have seen the fallout from friends who personally experienced horrible treatment by the guy, so this fake hero crusade is what I take issue with. Uber paying affected drivers, on the other hand, is fantastic.

*Edited for clarity.

What I also hate is that Uber tries to play the PR game and show themselves as the great guys here. Forget that they pay their drivers peanuts, that drivers have to drive up to 30% more now to make the same wages as just a few years ago, and that many are calling Uber to unionise.

I hate they way everyone is just using people to further their message and forgetting that these are people.

This +100. From what friends who were early at Uber tell me, this is not consistent with his character and feels like a PR grab. This issue is beyond f'd up, and while I guess any attention is good attention if it causes action, I draw the line at giving credit for cheap PR stunts.

That is quite literally the definition of a minority :)

Seriously though, I take your point and this is a reminder that if we ignore vocal minorities spouting hate, eventually they may grow big enough to take control. If you see this type of behavior in your own backyard then please vote even if you don't think it will matter.

And share with others. This is only one poor guy, but there's plenty more like him out there who have done everything right and jumped through the USCIS hoops to get here legally with the goal of improving their (and potentially their family's) life. This is beyond wrong and now is not the time to sit on our hands.

EDIT: Link looks like it is currently broken for me too.

It's not legal, but per my comment above Kodi offers a pretty good solution via a Mi Box, Roku, Fire TV etc. Exodus has pretty much every show you could wish to watch on demand, and then there's (paid) IPTV services that you can access if you have to watch live TV. Again, it's not legal but it beats torrenting as you're never uploading any content, only consuming.

We pay for Netflix and have access to all of the Amazon content via our Prime subscription and then we just use Exodus on Kodi for everything else. I'd love to see a legal Exodus emerge one day but I think it's unlikely in the foreseeable future.

No, I don't think that is correct. The US is silent on dual citizenship but I believe that it's only if you pledge your allegiance to another country (e.g. to defend that country in a war) that you are deemed by the US to have revoked your citizenship. I'm guessing that didn't happen in Thiel's case.

EDIT: to address your edit - you need to look at the wording of the relevant INA section which includes "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". That's the key part, you have to have the intent to abandon your US citizenship. I know plenty of US-born people who hold dual citizenship so it is definitely possible.

I realize this doesn't necessarily answer the original question, but in my mind I view two major buckets of stress:

1. Immediate, demand-driven stress.

2. Low-level, semi-constant stress (the nagging kind).

I'm perfectly fine with 1, as I accept that as part of the job which I'm highly compensated for.

Number 2 though is what always affects me the most and is the reason I left my last role. It's the kind of stress that is alway present under the surface but never quite manifests itself like #1 does.

Think of the boss who is constantly inconsistent (consistently inconsistent?), saying something one day and then something completely different the next. You shrug it off with an eyeroll and start re-doing all of your work, but deep down it eats away at you. Or the lazy colleague who you're constantly cleaning up after but who is best buddies with leadership so is regularly promoted ahead of more capable colleagues. The frustration bubbles under the surface but due to office politics there's nothing you can really do about it. I could go on, but I'm sure we've all suffered some form of low level stress that has a far more significant impact on our personal well-being than we care to admit.

The emergence of these '30 Under 30' lists is troubling in and of itself!

Different events, although both are now contested in foiling cats.

The America's Cup, which Oracle currently holds, is the oldest sporting trophy in the world with a long history of billionaires falling over themselves to win (Koch, Bertelli, Bertarelli, Fay). The Cup is generally contested every four years, with the next event happening in Bermuda this year.

The ESS, on the other hand, is a more recent series and is contested every year. While less prestigious than the AC, the ESS still attracts some big names and arguably produces better racing but less intrigue.

Over the years a test I've often used is asking "how does this person respond to being challenged/questioned?" A great leader tends to embrace the fact that someone is asking "why" and uses it as an opportunity to learn and potentially convert the questioning party (if they're questioning something in the first place, then you haven't nailed it 100%). A weak leader who doesn't have confidence in their abilities sees the challenge as a personal attack and reacts in a knee-jerk fashion (often, though not always, resulting in a termination). If you can't reconcile differing opinions and convert those with opposing views to you then you're doomed as a leader and odds are your company/team will experience high turnover.

Obviously there's a whole range of other traits that make great leaders, but I've found people that fail this test are almost always terrible leaders who others don't want to work for.

The company I am at now is an LLC and distributes RSUs, which meant when I joined I was able to file an 83/b form which minimizes my tax impact.

The usual impediment to this is venture funding. VCs generally don't like, and often can't invest in, LLCs so companies are forced down the corporation route.

I may be wrong, but I think that in order to early exercise the underlying Option Plan has to allow for it which isn't always a given these days for some reason.

I think it depends on how it's handled. If the CEO fosters an open environment where employees can put forward contrarian views but everyone respects that the final decision ultimately rests with her (including saying "no") then in my experience the company will be one with high morale which in turn generates success. The alternative is a CEO who views objections as disrespectful and gets rid of any "disruptive" people. I've experienced both scenarios, and the second is never anything but a disaster that leads to high turnover and the best employees leaving for roles where they are actually valued.

My wife and I have a 90/10 low deductible plan with 90% of premiums employer-covered. It costs us ~$220 per month in premiums so total plan cost is over $2k per month plus our out-of-pocket monthly expenses are usually $150-200 in co-pays and prescription costs. So over $25k a year on healthcare alone.

I was born and raised in a single payer country where healthcare is free (or close to it) and we are seriously considering a move back there. If we lose our jobs here in the US we would be screwed due to my wife's ongoing mental health needs.