Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price resigns(seattletimes.com)
seattletimes.com
Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price resigns
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/gravity-payments-ceo-dan-price-resigns/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_tw_m&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1660784128-1
176 comments
https://archive.ph/ndp3N for those without a subscription.
Wow that's a hell of an article! It just got crazier and crazier
> “He said it is so hard being him in the world because of his intelligence,” she later recalled.
>After Ms. Margis liked one of his Instagram posts in 2020, Mr. Price, who was 35, messaged her: “Happy Valentine’s Day beautiful!”
This already is a huge red flag in my opinion.
This already is a huge red flag in my opinion.
I hate these stories, because we have no idea which side is true. The reckless drive is the only charge than can be proven, or at least have vitnesses.
Criminal charges really should be kept out of the media until there’s enough evidence to jail the suspect. This is to protect both sides.
Criminal charges really should be kept out of the media until there’s enough evidence to jail the suspect. This is to protect both sides.
> Criminal charges really should be kept out of the media until there’s enough evidence to jail the suspect
That's why some countries in the EU, and the UK, have laws protecting the identity of people until after sentencing. E.g. in Bulgaria only their initials can be used, and no photos are allowed. In the UK, they just vaguely describe them (footballer from Manchester in his 20s accused of sexual assault).
That's why some countries in the EU, and the UK, have laws protecting the identity of people until after sentencing. E.g. in Bulgaria only their initials can be used, and no photos are allowed. In the UK, they just vaguely describe them (footballer from Manchester in his 20s accused of sexual assault).
I am a woman and just scrolling through the NYT article header made me cringe, it felt like a hit peice. Judging by how previous incidents have been portrayed by the media, NYT included, I never take sides. It's up for the courts to determine this.
Well it would have been in the media due to him resigning anyway, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the recent allegations.
While I don't know about the recent stuff there seems clear evidence he was sketchy financially re the original setting salaries to 70k thing. He claimed he did that and then his brother and fellow shareholder sued him for doing it but really the brother launched the suit before that happened objecting to him paying himself a $1m+ salary and hence grabbing the profits and making all salaries $70k was probably a reaction to the suit. Source https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-pric...
While I don't know about the recent stuff there seems clear evidence he was sketchy financially re the original setting salaries to 70k thing. He claimed he did that and then his brother and fellow shareholder sued him for doing it but really the brother launched the suit before that happened objecting to him paying himself a $1m+ salary and hence grabbing the profits and making all salaries $70k was probably a reaction to the suit. Source https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-pric...
Interesting how the media continues to bring up the lawsuit but never share the real story and the outcome to the lawsuit. I guess it is more profitable to spread lies.
Here is one article sharing the details after the lawsuit with Dan and his brother. People should do more research before blasting opinions. It is terrible what the US is allowed to share and spread buyer to gain more article clicks!
https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
Here is one article sharing the details after the lawsuit with Dan and his brother. People should do more research before blasting opinions. It is terrible what the US is allowed to share and spread buyer to gain more article clicks!
https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
[deleted]
Except for politicians (and perhaps government officials)? Rich people?
The moment you define “rich people”, though, all people who fit that definition will suddenly transfer all of their assets to their spouses and immediately divorce them, heh. Assessing a person's actual worth is not an easy task. Not impossible, mind you, but not easy.
I hope this means he'll stop posting the 70k story every other day on LinkedIn. Only person I've ever had to block there. I didn't follow him, but too many 2nd+ degree connections liked his posts to make it too much for me.
Same here, he is my one and only LinkedIn block.
Given how anodyne (even if sometimes vapid) most LinkedIn activity is, it’s quite a feat of obnoxiousness to get yourself blocked on LinkedIn, of all places.
Given how anodyne (even if sometimes vapid) most LinkedIn activity is, it’s quite a feat of obnoxiousness to get yourself blocked on LinkedIn, of all places.
I did the same thing, so obnoxious and redundant
Parent did say it was LinkedIn, yes. /j
I understand that our current society expects me to believe by default his wife's accusations of sexual assault, but are we also supposed to believe that he waterboarded her, as she alleged in a TEDx talk?
(I actually think he is likely an abuser, etc., and it seems like the 70k thing was in response to a lawsuit, but c'mon I really doubt he waterboarded anyone.)
(I actually think he is likely an abuser, etc., and it seems like the 70k thing was in response to a lawsuit, but c'mon I really doubt he waterboarded anyone.)
The 70k was already in the works before the lawsuit.
https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
And again a good example of American Puritanism where someone pass from the status of Hero to Paria as soon as someone discover he has flaws.
Everybody is flawed, damned everybody, including yourself.
And the most extraordinary people are, Often the less acceptable in term of social norms they are too.
- The Most brillant CEOs are often terrible family Dad and with psychological/narcissist problems.... Still they are giving people jobs and making the world a better place.
- Many Brillant scientists have asperger syndromes and are asociable nightmare for the people that work with.... Still brillant scientists that make the world a better place.
- Many authors have self-destructive syndromes and chronic depression affecting their close relative. Still they wrote amazing piece of art.
Same for actors, authors, philosophers, producers, political figures.. your neighbor, everybody.
Nobody is ever perfect even close to this fake perfect public image hero they try to create.
That apply to Dan Price too, whatever he did.
Maybe it is time to grow up America and accept the world as it is.
Everybody is flawed, damned everybody, including yourself.
And the most extraordinary people are, Often the less acceptable in term of social norms they are too.
- The Most brillant CEOs are often terrible family Dad and with psychological/narcissist problems.... Still they are giving people jobs and making the world a better place.
- Many Brillant scientists have asperger syndromes and are asociable nightmare for the people that work with.... Still brillant scientists that make the world a better place.
- Many authors have self-destructive syndromes and chronic depression affecting their close relative. Still they wrote amazing piece of art.
Same for actors, authors, philosophers, producers, political figures.. your neighbor, everybody.
Nobody is ever perfect even close to this fake perfect public image hero they try to create.
That apply to Dan Price too, whatever he did.
Maybe it is time to grow up America and accept the world as it is.
> That apply to Dan Price too, whatever he did.
> Maybe it is time to grow up America and accept the world as it is.
What does that mean?
I think I understand your point - that people like to create hero-narratives that are mostly not true, and that at high levels of achievement some very successful people carry the seeds of their own destruction.
Fair enough. But the Puritan America that you want to grow up is a straw man. And Dan Price is a effectively a nobody, who either assaulted someone or didn’t and as he’s been formally accused, it’s for the courts to adjudicate.
> Maybe it is time to grow up America and accept the world as it is.
What does that mean?
I think I understand your point - that people like to create hero-narratives that are mostly not true, and that at high levels of achievement some very successful people carry the seeds of their own destruction.
Fair enough. But the Puritan America that you want to grow up is a straw man. And Dan Price is a effectively a nobody, who either assaulted someone or didn’t and as he’s been formally accused, it’s for the courts to adjudicate.
> Dan Price is a effectively a nobody
Dan Price is not a nobody.
He is a public figure, frequently in TV and media presented regularly as "The alternative CEO model that arrive to give to his workers excellent working conditions while having a successful and growing business".
And yet, I can bet with you that whatever the judgement of the court will be, the American press will now (opportunistically) vomit on him for the rest of his days.
Dan Price is not a nobody.
He is a public figure, frequently in TV and media presented regularly as "The alternative CEO model that arrive to give to his workers excellent working conditions while having a successful and growing business".
And yet, I can bet with you that whatever the judgement of the court will be, the American press will now (opportunistically) vomit on him for the rest of his days.
Plenty of publicly shamed and dishonored CEOs have come back from the brink, from Travis Kalanick to most spectacularly, recently, Adam Neumann. If Price is able to be found innocent by the courts, he would likely do so as well. He doesn’t need you weeping and clutching pearls on his behalf.
pretty weird to call rape a “flaw”
Pretty weird to call forcibly kissing someone “rape”. Pretty sure it’s something but it’s not rape.
While I agree that forcibly kissing someone isn’t rape, in the NYT article posted somewhere in this chain he’s accused of penetration without consent.
Accused, not convicted.
Should accusations be counted as flaws?
Should accusations be counted as flaws?
No they shouldn’t, nor do I think it should be legal to drag someone’s name through the mud before conviction.
Regardless, the “flaws” this person was referring to were the accusations, and the accusations were of rape not forcible kissing.
Regardless, the “flaws” this person was referring to were the accusations, and the accusations were of rape not forcible kissing.
“The one moral CEO in America.” That's up there with Ken Lay's proclamation that Enron set the bar for corporate ethics (I can't find the exact quote, and obviously before the collapse).
'The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.' -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Anyhoo, I have no actual idea if the accusations against Price are founded or not. That's for the courts to decide. I'm not into the whole "trial by Twitter" thing.
'The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.' -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Anyhoo, I have no actual idea if the accusations against Price are founded or not. That's for the courts to decide. I'm not into the whole "trial by Twitter" thing.
"Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is the gate for government violence, but as a society we operate on a very different standard, for very good reasons.
Multiple credible accusations, corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, collated by a reputable journalist is definitely enough to call the accusations founded.
Not enough to send people with guns to take away his freedom, maybe, but enough to form an opinion. Otherwise, are we supposed to involve the legal system in every assessment we make of anyone?
Multiple credible accusations, corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, collated by a reputable journalist is definitely enough to call the accusations founded.
Not enough to send people with guns to take away his freedom, maybe, but enough to form an opinion. Otherwise, are we supposed to involve the legal system in every assessment we make of anyone?
What is the value of forming an opinion about someone we will probably never interact with and has no influence on our lives? I can understand if you work for his company or know him in person. But for the rest of the internet, I don't see the purpose except to fuel outrage.
Because you've already formed an opinion (Maybe you've read articles saying "The one moral CEO in America" like the grandparent) and you want to correct it if your prior opinion was incomplete.
I mean… he’s the one out here in front of the press all the time. He was a CEO of a card processing company! There is a universe in which he wouldn’t be a household name.
Sure the “outrage” is just high level gossip for most people talking about it, but it’s a reaction to this person being a loud and vocal person who was trying to build a public persona of being a Good Guy.
There’s definitely a larger idea here about journalism in general looking for hero stories. But the guy is out there giving the interviews
Sure the “outrage” is just high level gossip for most people talking about it, but it’s a reaction to this person being a loud and vocal person who was trying to build a public persona of being a Good Guy.
There’s definitely a larger idea here about journalism in general looking for hero stories. But the guy is out there giving the interviews
You also answered the GP's question as to why we should care about this.
If you're reading and seeing multiple stories all over the media about what a wonderful, altruistic person someone is, the information as to whether that person is in fact a great guy, or whether he's a predatory scumbag who is exploiting the media to make himself look great is very valuable. It tells you something about how the media works.
If you're reading and seeing multiple stories all over the media about what a wonderful, altruistic person someone is, the information as to whether that person is in fact a great guy, or whether he's a predatory scumbag who is exploiting the media to make himself look great is very valuable. It tells you something about how the media works.
> a gear guy or a predatory scumbag
You can be a terrible person and have great ideas/inventions.
Steve jobs treated his family like shit, Nazis made many scientific discoveries, etc.
You can be a terrible person and have great ideas/inventions.
Steve jobs treated his family like shit, Nazis made many scientific discoveries, etc.
I think you can assassinate a wonderful idea by having the _wrong_ person present it. People rarely judge a thing on its inherent qualities.
Source matters. Always, for anything.
There is essentially no such thing as "inherent qualities" distinct from their source. Or rather, you can never actually know all the inherent qualities.
Knowledge of the sources history, character, motivations, and intentions is itself one of those inherent qualities.
If someone presents you with an idea, you often don't know if it's a good idea or just looks like a good idea because it was crafted to look good, in service of some unknown ultimate goal that you would not voluntarily choose to support if you knew everything.
Every scam in history is based on convincing a victim to harm themselves. Apparently, inherent qualities can be unknown, unknowable, or hidden. It's too late to contest that. It's already been happening for all of human history, and on every possible scale.
Judging something because the source has a known evil character is not wrong or counterproductive or unfair the way it is judging something because the source has pleasing charisma or lacks it.
If a Nazi says something, it's automatically not a wonderful idea in the first place, even if someone else later says the exact same thing and we all agree it's a wonderful idea then.
It's not wrong or illogical. It's just a slight of hand used by the dishonest (or the merely misguided) to try to make it seem wrong or hypocritical by pointing out only the surface similarity between that and prejudice based on nothing that stands up to scrutiny, when those are actually two very different things.
It's like a less obvious version of crying about being ddnied the freedom to deny others freedom.
There is essentially no such thing as "inherent qualities" distinct from their source. Or rather, you can never actually know all the inherent qualities.
Knowledge of the sources history, character, motivations, and intentions is itself one of those inherent qualities.
If someone presents you with an idea, you often don't know if it's a good idea or just looks like a good idea because it was crafted to look good, in service of some unknown ultimate goal that you would not voluntarily choose to support if you knew everything.
Every scam in history is based on convincing a victim to harm themselves. Apparently, inherent qualities can be unknown, unknowable, or hidden. It's too late to contest that. It's already been happening for all of human history, and on every possible scale.
Judging something because the source has a known evil character is not wrong or counterproductive or unfair the way it is judging something because the source has pleasing charisma or lacks it.
If a Nazi says something, it's automatically not a wonderful idea in the first place, even if someone else later says the exact same thing and we all agree it's a wonderful idea then.
It's not wrong or illogical. It's just a slight of hand used by the dishonest (or the merely misguided) to try to make it seem wrong or hypocritical by pointing out only the surface similarity between that and prejudice based on nothing that stands up to scrutiny, when those are actually two very different things.
It's like a less obvious version of crying about being ddnied the freedom to deny others freedom.
Forming an opinion is great and everyone's right.
Nowadays, exactly the same process you describe, is used to cancel people without proper chance for them to defend themselves. So I would be double careful with "multiple accusations", amplified in mass media and/or social media bubble because this is exactly how mob virtually lynches people in 2022.
Nowadays, exactly the same process you describe, is used to cancel people without proper chance for them to defend themselves. So I would be double careful with "multiple accusations", amplified in mass media and/or social media bubble because this is exactly how mob virtually lynches people in 2022.
What do you mean by 'cancel', outside the context of blacklisting entertainers? How does that apply to a CEO? Presumably anyone considering employing or funding him is entitled (and likely competent) to read the facts and others' thoughts about them.
I think the point about 'multiple accusers' is fair. People will come out of the woodwork, especially when there's money at stake (from the press or from legal action). Michael Jackson is a good example: undoubtedly he did rape some of those kids, but not all of them. Still, I don't see why this provides an argument against forming an opinion, rather than one for forming opinions judiciously.
Also, look up Jesse Washington if you want to understand what lynching means.
I think the point about 'multiple accusers' is fair. People will come out of the woodwork, especially when there's money at stake (from the press or from legal action). Michael Jackson is a good example: undoubtedly he did rape some of those kids, but not all of them. Still, I don't see why this provides an argument against forming an opinion, rather than one for forming opinions judiciously.
Also, look up Jesse Washington if you want to understand what lynching means.
Not "we", but people like you certainly. There is no "credibility" if there is no real evidence. History is full of journalists creating sensational articles and amplifying things out of proportion to sale news papers. They deliberately leave out the context just to create outrage. You feel entitled for being jury and the judge and punish a person because it all "feels" right - except if you would be on the receiving end.
Unfortunately, that approach leads to confimation bias, as well as other biases. The point being - the media and other nefarious characters knowing - once the seed of accusations are planted, for the most part we are wired *not* to let go of that. It lives on well after the real facts have surfaced.
Also, along the same lines, the human memory is fairly easy to manipulate. It's not the air tight SSD we all presume it to be.
As a rule of thumb "follow the money". The fact is there are plenty of CEOs and other champions of Crony Capitalism that would pay good money to see him fall. If Big Sugar can buy off Harvard profs and their research so they blame fat for America's failing health ...Price is definitely fair game. And look...sugar still gets a free pass from most people.
I'm not defending Price. He's got a lawyer for that. Simply pointing out that beneath the surface, the world is a dirty place. When money and the status quo is involved I'm far slower to jump to conclusions.
Also, along the same lines, the human memory is fairly easy to manipulate. It's not the air tight SSD we all presume it to be.
As a rule of thumb "follow the money". The fact is there are plenty of CEOs and other champions of Crony Capitalism that would pay good money to see him fall. If Big Sugar can buy off Harvard profs and their research so they blame fat for America's failing health ...Price is definitely fair game. And look...sugar still gets a free pass from most people.
I'm not defending Price. He's got a lawyer for that. Simply pointing out that beneath the surface, the world is a dirty place. When money and the status quo is involved I'm far slower to jump to conclusions.
You may form opinions which are yours to keep. When you enable a hivemind with half the power of the legal system, you ought to bear half the responsibility of the legal system.
> Multiple credible accusations, corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, collated by a reputable journalist is definitely enough to call the accusations founded.
Journalists build a narrative and then find facts that fit their narrative. If you continue to form your opinions on accusation you will find yourself easily manipulated by those who know how journalism works.
Journalists build a narrative and then find facts that fit their narrative. If you continue to form your opinions on accusation you will find yourself easily manipulated by those who know how journalism works.
For the record...that's not journalism. It might be reporting. It might be marketing. It might be character assassination.
But. It's not journalism.
We need to stop giving that type of behaviour a greater title than it deserves.
But. It's not journalism.
We need to stop giving that type of behaviour a greater title than it deserves.
This. Exactly fucking this.
The legal system is already involved. Why are you so anxious to form an opinion?
Tell that to Tim Hunt
[deleted](1)
This story isn’t about ‘trial by Twitter’.
An online mob isn’t what put this guy’s behavior in the spotlight - it was the reporting done by a journalist who saw through his program and the actions of women who were willing to go to the police, to speak to each other, and to talk to reporters.
The power of social media that this story reveals is the degree to which presence and popularity can drown out important information. He just kept rooting his horn and everyone forgot what his wife said.
An online mob isn’t what put this guy’s behavior in the spotlight - it was the reporting done by a journalist who saw through his program and the actions of women who were willing to go to the police, to speak to each other, and to talk to reporters.
The power of social media that this story reveals is the degree to which presence and popularity can drown out important information. He just kept rooting his horn and everyone forgot what his wife said.
I think the media rather profit that share the truth. Many of the women are not credible and can’t get their story straight.
That's why you don't judge someone by what they say but what they actually do. Cutting his pay and giving hikes to his employees is commendable. The rest of the allegations against him, not so.
I can't understand why people believe the people being able to make the more noise about a topic are actually being the best at that topic.
The reality is that the people who get the more noise are just the best marketers
The reality is that the people who get the more noise are just the best marketers
There has been plenty of those accusations like waterboarding his ex-wife and usually no smoke without a fire is pretty good thumb-rule about these things.
> usually no smoke without a fire is pretty good thumb-rule about these things
No, that's exactly the reason why trial by Twitter shouldn't be done, you don't know what actually happened.
No, that's exactly the reason why trial by Twitter shouldn't be done, you don't know what actually happened.
This isn’t trial by Twitter.
This is actual human beings approaching legitimate newspapers with fact checking departments and legal departments and risks of defamation lawsuits, providing their stories and attaching their names to it.
Everyone of the entities involved are at risk of being sued for defamation if they are lying in this situation. The fact that people can’t tell the difference between Twitter BS and actual news claims is a true indictment of modern society.
This is actual human beings approaching legitimate newspapers with fact checking departments and legal departments and risks of defamation lawsuits, providing their stories and attaching their names to it.
Everyone of the entities involved are at risk of being sued for defamation if they are lying in this situation. The fact that people can’t tell the difference between Twitter BS and actual news claims is a true indictment of modern society.
>fact checking departments
The age of clickbait has reduced these to a farce. I've seen fact-checks that were blatantly false.
There are no reputable papers anymore.
The age of clickbait has reduced these to a farce. I've seen fact-checks that were blatantly false.
There are no reputable papers anymore.
Some might see it as a true indictment of modern journalism, more concerned with generating clicks than reporting news. Also the bar for defamation is extremely high, spreading lies is not enough to qualify.
Defamation is a hard thing to prove. For one, the one who publishes must know that something isn't true. Newspapers have zero risk of that when they quote somebody's statement.
If one wanted to wage a dirt campaign against him the accusations would look exactly like they do now. He is obviously a controversial figure. Might have rustled the wrong feathers.
Many accusation are also very nebulous, hard to verify and avoiding anything concrete that could get the person making them get sued for defamation.
Of course, he also could just be an asshole and abuser. We simply can't know.
Many accusation are also very nebulous, hard to verify and avoiding anything concrete that could get the person making them get sued for defamation.
Of course, he also could just be an asshole and abuser. We simply can't know.
Exactly! Also the media should be sharing more of this. Than continue to push out stories that are already resolved. The brother Lucas ended up paying for all the lawyer fees after Dan won the case Interesting how the media continues to bring up the lawsuit but never share the real story and the outcome to the lawsuit. I guess it is more profitable to spread lies.
Here is one article sharing the details after the lawsuit with Dan and his brother. People should do more research before blasting opinions. It is terrible what the US is allowed to share and spread buyer to gain more article clicks!
https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
Here is one article sharing the details after the lawsuit with Dan and his brother. People should do more research before blasting opinions. It is terrible what the US is allowed to share and spread buyer to gain more article clicks!
https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
Just curious if you have an opinion regarding Deshaun Watson or his accusers. For context, he is a high-profile quarterback who earlier today was suspended by the NFL, based on a series of mostly anonymous accusations of sexual misconduct.
The very concept of slander could be defined as "smoke without fire". Surely you agree that slander exists, whether or not it's the case in this particular situation?
No that's the worst rule of thumb. That's how you end up with lynch mobs, witch burning etc.
Also, $70K is absolutely terrible in Seattle. I don't know why everyone applauded. He was massively underpaying most employees before and still did after.
Everyone applauded because 70k was a huge improvement over what most people were being paid in Seattle.
Not everyone gets paid software developer salaries.
Not everyone gets paid software developer salaries.
Sure, but his company is a credit card processing company, so there are probably a lot of tech workers.
I mean, a quick look at Glassdoor will show that while they do pay their "minimum" wage workers (which is probably an incredibly small part of their employees given the industry it's in) way above market, they underpay the rest and it is mentioned in almost all the negative reviews.
I mean, a quick look at Glassdoor will show that while they do pay their "minimum" wage workers (which is probably an incredibly small part of their employees given the industry it's in) way above market, they underpay the rest and it is mentioned in almost all the negative reviews.
Sounds like they/he decided to pay their workers more evenly across the different roles. That choice would be internally consistent and desirable for some.
Yeah, lots of folks make way less than that. $70k is double the minimum wage in Seattle.
Yes but Dan Price owns a company credit card processing company, not somewhere where minimum-wage workers are legion.
As the sole shareholder, does that mean he is reaping all the profits? It sounds like they had millions in profits from the article? That is quite a niche for a small company to carve out, when their competitors are stripe etc
[deleted]
This really is a good reason to keep personal and professional lives separate.
I'd like to see more people having one name at work, and another for their personal life, and keeping each compartmentalized.
It's legal to do in England for example. You can have as many names as you like, including surnames. To use multiple names for the purposes of furthering fraud or evading the police is illegal though.
I'd like to see more people having one name at work, and another for their personal life, and keeping each compartmentalized.
It's legal to do in England for example. You can have as many names as you like, including surnames. To use multiple names for the purposes of furthering fraud or evading the police is illegal though.
"But you never wore a ring, I didn't know you had a wife." -- "And my wife doesn't know I have a job, I keep my personal and professional life separate."
Western names are really odd and strange. So many people named after the fact that their grand-grand-grand-fathers did a certain job or people named after the city their forefathers used to live in and stuff like that. We think of names as fixed, but really the only reason they are like that is to support bureaucracy. A fluid relationship with names seems strange and exotic to us, but is far more natural.
Western names are really odd and strange. So many people named after the fact that their grand-grand-grand-fathers did a certain job or people named after the city their forefathers used to live in and stuff like that. We think of names as fixed, but really the only reason they are like that is to support bureaucracy. A fluid relationship with names seems strange and exotic to us, but is far more natural.
What one should read into this is that Those who crow about their Good Works are often not the gold they claim.
The one who needs no ego boost for doing moral things, is often what they fail to claim themselves, i.e. moral.
It's the whole principle around anonymous donor, if you happen to follow it.
The one who needs no ego boost for doing moral things, is often what they fail to claim themselves, i.e. moral.
It's the whole principle around anonymous donor, if you happen to follow it.
The really unfortunate part of this is the number of people who will use this as evidence that what he did with Gravity Payments either simply doesn't work, or is an actively bad idea.
Because, as several others here have pointed out, either someone is a Perfect Paragon of Purity, or they are Evil To Be Shunned And Cast Out...and everything associated with them must follow in either case.
Because, as several others here have pointed out, either someone is a Perfect Paragon of Purity, or they are Evil To Be Shunned And Cast Out...and everything associated with them must follow in either case.
Hmm from the article, his issues are unrelated to his salary policy but something else.
"Gravity Payments, which helps businesses process mobile and point-of-sale payments, cleared $6.5 billion in transactions for more than 12,000 businesses in 2014."
What exactly is the business model here? What do they do?
What exactly is the business model here? What do they do?
Allowing you to accept something other than cash without the hassle of interacting with a myriad of banks (and their APIs) yourself. They either give you a terminal to do it or an add-on for whatever you have currently. And they do the same for e-commerce.
I don't know about Gravity Payments but one of the huge money making machine in credit industry is collections. If you can figure out tricks to have people pay off their debt without getting dragged into expensive court, you get a huge portion of the proceeds. Many people would just pay things off right away because they did not notice library fines and things like that. As collection agency, you get huge cut for basically locating a person and sending them $0.25 mail.
Ok cool but yeah that has nothing at all to do with what they do. They’re like Stripe. They help you charge cards.
tibbydudeza(5)
istinetz(4)
chitowneats(2)
Probably bulshit
It didnt quit because of his salary, this is clickbait
Sounds like lots of women wanted him and he wanted lots of them.
But they didn't want to share. Mean.
> Dan Price, CEO who contrived scheme to cut his brother out of company and earn social media fame in order to abuse women, quits amid legal woes
Fixed.
Fixed.
Without proof that's defamation not a fix
By 'proof' I suspect you mean, at a minimum, the following?
> a conviction in a US court of law for at least the specific crimes alleged, or more serious crimes/charges/convictions of the same nature.
> a conviction in a US court of law for at least the specific crimes alleged, or more serious crimes/charges/convictions of the same nature.
An anecdote of why we should be comfortable with not idolizing any moral figures and yet respect whatever good things they've achieved / done. I guess this dichotomy of how broken men / women can also do great things or how great men / women can also do bad things is something we have to deal with in the real world. Could I point to DC Comics for some simple life lessons on that?
I'm thinking that he wouldn't have been allowed to become successful unless there was dirt on him.
It's the sad reality nowadays that the only people who can speak for the average person and for what's right are compromised in some way... They have to be compromised in order to be allowed to get that kind of reach.
Still, the accusations against him sound kind of hand-wavy... The 'waterboarding' thing sounds bad but if consent was given and it was done out of curiosity or thrill-seeking then there is no crime there.
It's the sad reality nowadays that the only people who can speak for the average person and for what's right are compromised in some way... They have to be compromised in order to be allowed to get that kind of reach.
Still, the accusations against him sound kind of hand-wavy... The 'waterboarding' thing sounds bad but if consent was given and it was done out of curiosity or thrill-seeking then there is no crime there.
Who's "allowing" success, I'd like to make an appointment?
Forget about the power and just ask for some compromising situations.
That’s not really a gotcha, instead just feels like naivety of how the world works and is controlled by those with power.
'They' are a bunch of algorithms and they don't take appointments. Just say a lot of positive things about the following topics on social media and the algorithms will start working for you:
- Fiat monetary system
- Banks
- Big corporations
- Big tech
- Hedge funds
- Billionaires
- The importance of censorship to prevent misinformation
- Executive bonuses
- Surveillance
- The need for more regulations
- Big government
- Stakeholder capitalism
- Climate change
- Inclusivity
Never say anything negative about them. Only positive but try to keep it realistic, don't go overboard because the algorithms might interpret that as sarcasm. You're welcome.
- Fiat monetary system
- Banks
- Big corporations
- Big tech
- Hedge funds
- Billionaires
- The importance of censorship to prevent misinformation
- Executive bonuses
- Surveillance
- The need for more regulations
- Big government
- Stakeholder capitalism
- Climate change
- Inclusivity
Never say anything negative about them. Only positive but try to keep it realistic, don't go overboard because the algorithms might interpret that as sarcasm. You're welcome.
This is some serious tin foil hattery you've got going on.
It doesn't require a conspiracy for tech platforms to modify their algorithms to promote certain agendas.
Governments can print unlimited amounts of new currency; this provides them a mechanism to distort the markets to reward activities which suit their agenda. ESG is a prime example of that.
Even wars happen in a large part because governments can print unlimited money and hand out huge contracts to weapons manufacturers. The government doesn't care about net losses because citizens are the ones who will pay through inflation... So long as the politicians' buddies who head the weapons manufacturing companies can rake in the profits, all is well. But government agendas extend far beyond just wars; they extend to just about every aspect of the economy these days.
Efficient market hypothesis is becoming increasingly irrelevant as government intervention in the economy increases.
Even wars happen in a large part because governments can print unlimited money and hand out huge contracts to weapons manufacturers. The government doesn't care about net losses because citizens are the ones who will pay through inflation... So long as the politicians' buddies who head the weapons manufacturing companies can rake in the profits, all is well. But government agendas extend far beyond just wars; they extend to just about every aspect of the economy these days.
Efficient market hypothesis is becoming increasingly irrelevant as government intervention in the economy increases.
How you jumped from private tech companies and their "agenda" to governments printing money for their "agenda" is really weird. While some of what you're saying has a seed of truth to it, you definitely like jumping to all sorts of conspiracies. I think you should speak to a mental health professional.
Let's not pretend that governments aren't working for big corporations. There is a lot of overlap between the private agenda of various large corporations and the government agenda. If it seems disconnected it's only because I don't have time to write out the whole theory and explain how all the different parts of the economy interact and TBH I can't say I fully understand it to be able to make an airtight argument. I just understand enough to make some predictions. The economy is too complex to fully explain; all you can do is lay out some loosely related facts and hope that it resonates with the reader. It's not a hard science. Let's wait 10 years and see which of us is the one who needed to see a professional.
I think if you start tweeting or publishing a lot of positive material on social media exclusively around those topics (save for the last few topics, because a lot of people actually are into those in 2022), you are far more likely to end up in a situation that is the exact opposite of "algorithms working for you".
Unless you amp it up to the point of irony/satire maybe, so that people would follow it for the comedic effect. But for that approach to actually work, the tin foil powerlevel gotta be a bit higher.
Unless you amp it up to the point of irony/satire maybe, so that people would follow it for the comedic effect. But for that approach to actually work, the tin foil powerlevel gotta be a bit higher.
Thanks, I'll try that and let you know once I have my first bank
Alternatively, psychopaths who are good at pandering on social media and attracting a lot of attention from gullible people, are also likely to do messed up things in their private life.
It doesn't have to be some kind of conspiracy, I don't know who you think is doing the "allowing to become successful" here.
It doesn't have to be some kind of conspiracy, I don't know who you think is doing the "allowing to become successful" here.
Sorry, but this seems ridiculous. Surely it's plausible that a tech company can see success independently of any dirt on a founder, and that his $70k thing made for easy headlines and brought him a lot of attention.
It's more likely that a self-promoter conceives of this sort of angle and with a view to pushing it as a gimmick, and that the same personality type is prone to the allegedly selfish behaviour.
It's more likely that a self-promoter conceives of this sort of angle and with a view to pushing it as a gimmick, and that the same personality type is prone to the allegedly selfish behaviour.
You underestimate how many people there are in the world competing for attention. I guarantee you that there are many far more interesting stories which never see the light of day.
No, I absolutely don't underestimate it. Why would you assume that the far more interesting stories would get more press? No one says "the far more interesting wheel gets the oil". There are loads of contributing factors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/technology/dan-price-resi...