HN user

hnxs

100 karma
Posts0
Comments57
View on HN
No posts found.

At first glance, I like the idea. But after thinking about it, there is something I really dislike. So much that it would make me want to lurk exclusively.

I will be paying you money for the privilege of posting questions (content) to your platform.

These questions will generate answers and discussions (more content). You now own this content, and it will be used to lure future customers by giving them an enticing preview, followed by a paywall. Once they are past the paywall, this content, that I helped create, and that you now own, will be something that adds value to your product.

I am assuming that the people providing advice during early stages are primarily paid seeders, and/or contributors with other incentives, such as shares in your company.

I assume that the long-term plan is that both sides will consist of paid subscribers.

I’m sure there are people who will pay to freely provide you with ownership of their advice for others. They might not even need the money. They will be content with receiving access to a community that is paywalled, unanonymous, and heavily moderated, in exchange for the subscription fee and their efforts.

But that’s not how I feel. So my question is, where’s my cut?

Does serving as an expert witness violate employment agreements with typical tech employers (eg FAANG)? Assuming you are being paid and you’re witnessing for an entity other than your employer.

good code is code that gets you promoted, increases your networth, and helps you retire faster

depending on your work environment, good code may actually be bad code.

nope, I remember starting my first tech job in 2013, and the only people in tech who cared about it were libertarians, which was a very small subgroup of tech

the companies you listed have been competing with faang for talent since they were formed. they’ve always had to pay competitively