Many, many, many people are clamoring to outlaw gambling in the very, very few places it is currently legal, myself included. Right now Draftkings and whatever that other one is are in the process of getting worked over by multiple state AGs for violating anti-gambling prohibitions.
Gambling is legal in only a tiny handful of places and in the few places where more casinos have recently been authorized, NY state (my state) included, it has been a hugely controversial decision. In NY State, the rationale was certainly not that gamblers benefitted, but that the added tourist attraction of creating casinos in depressed communities will boost the local economy. I think this was a patently bad decision and I'm certain that history will bear me out, that the local economies will not suddenly prosperous and quite to the contrary, all of the low grade crime associated with risk seekers, substance abusers and the profligate will now infect these communities as well.
The whole reason we have the SEC in the first place is to protect the credulous from the sharks.
I don't anticipate this type of crowdfunding taking off, quite honestly, and I don't know that this is a problem. We want the middle classes putting their assets in places safer than just betting them on papa's mustache in the third - which is what unsophisticated startup investing basically is. Except there is a much greater chance that a random horse picked with a dartboard is going to have a return than a random startup will.
Rather than try to bring coal mining back to this community as a form of social subsidy - why not just institute a basic federal income?
These folks are not alone - they are just the canaries in the mine. They have literally no useful modern job skills. And while they are the first to fall to this trend, as coal miners in 21st century america, millions of jobs are soon to follow, from fast food workers, to call center employees, to a huge number of accountants, lawyers, salespeople, factory workers - jobs of all kinds.
Rather than struggle with trying to give jobs to people who have no skills, and then trap them into working at these jobs in order to sustain themselves, why not just give them a guaranteed basic income that keeps them above poverty? Is that so hard?
If a post-sale modification of a product is foreseeable, and the manufacturer has not properly warned the user of its risks, then the manufacturer can be liable. It is really that simple.
There is an entire, rich, enormous field of law called products liability that is precisely about holding manufacturers accountable for the performance of their products post sale. Everything from toaster ovens to home furnaces to nuclear reactors.
> If we applied the same logic to other industries, there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA.
We do. I'm going to ignore the statement about gun manufacturers - because lets be serious, that is hugely politically loaded, and the only reason this already isn't a thing is due to a recent act of congress making it illegal to sue gun manufacturers for the damage their guns cause, which is very likely to be repealed in the near future - but in literally every other industry this happens all the goddamned time. Car manufacturers are sued constantly, as are the manufacturers of tools and appliances, home builders, makers of factory equipment, and even the companies that make the factories and power plants themselves.
I am just... shocked. America is rife with manufacturers getting sued for the use and misuse of their products, including their downstream modification by their users, on literally a daily basis. The entire plaintiff's bar is based around this. There is a massive, multibillion - and not single billions, tens of billions - industry around the diligence behind product testing, the insurance against lawsuits in products liabilities, and the lawsuits themselves, all targeted at domestic and foreign manufacturers of everything ranging from paperclips to airplanes. I literally - literally - have a dear friend who makes his living suing aircraft and aircraft component manufacturers for products liability resulting from aviation disasters. I literally have another colleague who had a rich career of representing class action plaintiffs in everything from malfunctioning car parts to injuries caused by pharmaceuticals.
> These laws that were passed to prop up car dealerships and came about in an era without mass marketing, but, very importantly, and self-acknowledgledly, these laws existed to prevent the manufacturer from undercutting prices offered by dealers - under the theory that dealers were of critical importance to customers for servicing and selling cars. Which is a combination of circular and dumb. And even if it was once true, because people could not comparison shop without the internet, it is now no longer true, because people can comparison shop with the internet and can visit manufacturers directly for servicing. These laws are literally anti-competitive monopolies that, if they never existed, would not need to be invented now to protect consumers. Instead they operate as enforceable licenses, dividing the country up into fiefdoms, in which each little fiefdom the local car dealer is the ensconced baron, operating with a monopoly on all original cars sales from that manufacturer in that territory - and if another dealer tries to sell new cars from that manufacturer in that territory, they can be stopped by the state and sued out of existence.
In other words, it was once thought that car dealerships offered critically important services to consumers - and even if that were once the case - and I deny that it was ever the case, it was just an excuse to pass these laws - it is no longer the case, because of carfax, bluebook, rigorously licensed repair shops, and car manufacturers that have figured out how to create and operate manufacturer owned dealerships.
This is the vestige of a bygone - and I argue, wholly credulous - era. It is a straight-up tax on the consumer, and it benefits no one but the car dealerships to make it literally illegal for two people to be selling new cars from the same manufacturer within the same territory. That is what those laws do - let that sink in, because that is fucking ri-goddamn-diculous. Car dealerships, and their territories, literally become heritable assets like a barony. It's insane.
And no, my sarcasm aside, the point about being silent in areas of ignorance was made out of frustration that because the person I was replying to was personally ignorant it meant that there was a bona fide debate in this area. There isn't. And it is pretty easy to do the research. I find all to common, however, it being a very fashionable and vogue statement for someone to make to prove how intellectual and cultured they are that, if they aren't familiar with an area of discussion, then surely there must be a legitimate debate to be had. Well, no. That is sometimes true, and very often not. This is one of those cases.
You will find two sides in this debate: car dealers and the people paid by car dealers; literally everyone else.
What bugs the hell out of me is that on HN - rather like on reddit - there are often comments that make lipservice to an abstract concept of quasi-erudite fairness, saying "well if we don't have all the facts, how can we judge!?" well, two responses:
1. You are literally already on the internet. Use google for like, 30 seconds.
2. Oftentimes, those facts are actually in the underlying link.
In this case, it is self evidently true that the laws that were passed to prop up car dealerships came about in an era without mass marketing, but, very importantly, and self-acknowledgledly, these laws existed to prevent the manufacturer from undercutting prices offered by dealers - under the theory that dealers were of critical importance to customers for servicing and selling cars. Which is a combination of circular and dumb. And even if it was once true, because people could not comparison shop without the internet, it is now no longer true, because people can comparison shop with the internet and can visit manufacturers directly for servicing.
These laws are literally anti-competitive monopolies that, if they never existed, would not need to be invented now to protect consumers. Instead they operate as enforceable licenses, dividing the country up into fiefdoms, in which each little fiefdom the local car dealer is the ensconced baron, operating with a monopoly on all original cars sales from that manufacturer in that territory - and if another dealer tries to sell new cars from that manufacturer in that territory, they can be stopped by the state and sued out of existence.
That, dotcomrade, is a load of bullshit. And easily discoverable with a 30-90 second google search.
We know why it was put up. This is not a mystery. It was lobbied for by car dealerships in order to procure monopoly status, under the guise of 'consumer protection.'
This is kind of a bullshit response, honestly. This is a very, very well plumbed, documented and reported on issue. The corollary to your statement about fences is:
"About which you do not know, be silent."
Car dealership laws may have served a purpose, but their primary purpose these days is to enrich car dealership owners:
> I'd be curious to know if anyone on HN thinks that this is morally and ethically ok?
1. Yes. Absolutely. What could be morally unacceptable about this?
2. I very strongly believe in business ethics. And consumer protection, and worker protection. I don't think that this, in general, rises to the level of even being an issue with regard to consumer protection or worker protection. I don't know what about this would be unethical.
3. If you are going to say "user tracking" then I am just at a loss. This is categorically no different than any of the many dozens of user tracking services already in use. Except that, unlike many of those services who are very, very explicitly shady and fly-by-night, LinkedIn is, overall, an ethical player. When I visit NYTimes.com, my ghostery registers:
* Chartbeat
* Doubleclick
* Dynamic Yield
* Facebook Connect
* Facebook Custom Audience
* Google Analytics
* Moat
* Netratings Site Census
* New Relic
* Optimizely
* ScoreCard Research
* WebTrends
As long as this guy has an appropriately written privacy policy, I see absolutely nothing legally wrong with this, either. Morally - I just don't even know where to begin on how facile a complaint I consider that to be.
At no point in this post is there anything remotely resembling an example of what the author is talking about. With the exception of the reference to active record, the author could be talking about literally any other framework or toolset.
Does 65B represent the actual money value that people will pay for the shares of 100% of the ~600 currently existing YC companies?
Does it tell us the average value? The mean? Standard deviation? Quintile distributions? P/E? Is that number just based on valuations from funding rounds? Projections?
It is literally meaningless. It is not verifiable. The standards that are used to calculate it are not explained. There is no explanation to how it relates to the companies in the portfolio.
I'm a bear by nature. I think that the current batch of SaaS unicorns have an unsustainable valuation, and I think this unverified number feeds into that.
This is also rather misleading - because 300 have been shut down, 904 have been funded, which includes 107 in the last batch, which can be discounted entirely from these stats. This gives us 300/797 have shut down, or a percentage of about 38%.
What I'd like to know is the value, at exit, of the companies that have exited or gone public. Because I can guarantee you that the "valuation" of $65B+ is a totally meaningless number. This includes every single company that had a huge, unsustainable up round which will almost certainly be devalued based on future financings or exits.
Also, why is the cost of employees with overhead lower? (NB/EDIT: Pointed out below this is for 3/4 of the year, not the full year - but the rest of my point stands.) That makes zero sense. Surely they are paying payroll tax, unemployment insurance and health insurance for their employees, no?
In the world of business, good ideas are literally priceless - in that they have literally no value. Good ideas aren't even that important to a business. Good execution is what matters. Even sub-optimal ideas can be billion dollar businesses. I still think that the basic idea behind twitter is only mediocre, but it is so excellently executed that it is a joy to use. The same applies for pinterest. They are just not great "ideas." But the execution is phenomenal.
Let's put it another way. When you say:
>It would be interesting to put together a list of these "good idea, but poor execution" ideas.
I read:
>It would be interesting to put together a list of these "execution plans but poor execution" ideas.
There is absolutely no way to separate out the "good idea" from the "good idea but poor execution" because business is the art of execution.
Because the question is not about general law principles. It is testing to see if you know the tort of public disclosure of private facts and if you know about the right of publicity.
Importantly, let me be more clear:
* The definition of "newsworthy" in this case is a term of art, not a matter of "it is not newsworthy in the same way that stories about the hulk are not newsworthy." Newsworthy, in this instance, does not mean meritorious as a subject of news, but merely of public interest. In this case, yes, it is newsworthy. This is the way courts use this word in this context.
* Case law is very, very resoundingly settled on this matter. Activity you conduct in public can be recorded and broadcast for a huge variety of purposes - end of story. The only really restricted purposes, in fact, are those that imply sponsorship or endorsement, or are injurious as a matter of libel - meaning there is a material falsehood. This question is structured, specifically, to see if the reader knows about the laws of libel and publicity - truth is a defense to libel (this is a true recount of facts occurring in the broadcast of the footage) and newsworthiness is an exception to violation of rights of publicity (which are typically only violated when implying sponsorship or endorsement).
The reason the questions don't make sense, then, is for the very reason that a lot of people don't respect what lawyers do (note: I am in now way implying you do not - you have put time and thought into your response and I found it very stimulating! I am talking in general) - because though we use english as the language of practice it does not mean we use the commonly used english definitions of those words in the legal context. Here, in this context, without knowing a fair amount of law, you wouldn't know that there were specific privacy rights being dealt with and that "newsworthy" is a term of art. In other words, the question being asked is absolutely no less technical than the question on mortgages - except that mortgages are so esoteric no one accidentally mistakes understanding mortgages for the mere fact that they are explained in english words. If I could go back in time, I'd write laws in camelcaps to make it clear that the legal definition of newsWorthy is different than the lay meaning of newsworthy.
I follow - in my practice, when dealing with the phrase "employment agreement" it almost always refers to an agreement with a fixed or minimum term of employment.
This is all beside the point. The central point is that an at-will employment agreement, reduced to writing or otherwise (NB: in NY State, it is explicitly the case that a contract regarding employment must be in writing if it is of an indefinite term, else it violates our statute of frauds - this has been dealt with affirmatively by the court of appeals) is definitionally terminable for any reason or no reason, at any time, without notice. In this regard, it is a type of adhesion agreement, and acceptance of each payment of consideration acts as a renewal of the agreement. As a result, its terms may be changed, at any time, by either party, where payment and acceptance of consideration acts as ratification of those terms, so long as the terms are not explicitly illegal.
This was my point. And that is the way this decision came out. It is 100% unproblematic.
Feel free to debate the semantics of whether an "employment agreement" means any contract relating to employment (is an NDA an employment agreement? What about an offer letter?) or if it can also mean a fixed or minimum term agreement (NB2: I've been involved in many labor disputes and maybe the use of "employment agreement" is dealt with as conceptually separate from "at will employment" more frequently by labor lawyers - I know that the labor lawyers I have worked with don't seem to use the two phrases interchangeably). It is not what I was arguing at all. And DannyBee got it wrong, explicitly. The judge explicitly limited the discussion to at-will employment.
To put it another way: this decision should only be surprising to someone who doesn't know about at-will employment or standard american employment practices. Having overseen the contentious separation of a dozen high level executives at my various clients, and having overseen the "employment agreements" (both at will and for fixed terms, just to be clear) for many, many dozens more, I can assure you, this decision, even if it were issued in New York, doesn't change my practice one iota.
> Is it significantly different from talking to a priest or a faith healer?
* Faith healers are priests aren't trained in the myriad forms of double blind tested, peer reviewed techniques that can be used to help manage or reduce stress and emotional pain.
* Therapists don't just listen. They talk. They make suggestions - ranging from everything from common sense things that may have more weight because they are coming from a medical professional, to recommending aggressive routines and techniques (meditation, diet change, medication, group therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, changes in routine, sleep patterns) that require the active participation of the patient and, over time, are shown, in double blind, peer reviewed studies, to have positive impacts. You aren't just paying some asshole to listen to you.
* A therapist, with years of training, is often able to easily identify stressors of which you are unaware, and separate out stressors that are present in the environment (your shitty, shitty job) vs. the result of old emotional trauma (e.g. horrible parenting) vs. personality disorders (borderline personality, OCD) vs. mental illness (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder) and can figure out a plan tailored to your needs. This may involve a combination of different types of therapy (there are many, and many types of 'talk' therapy actually are vastly different when viewed from the inside), in some instances, medication, and in most instances, figuring out how to make changes in your life to reduce stressors.
A therapist isn't just a black hole into whom you throw your problems. A therapist is a medical expert who has deep knowledge of personality and mental disorders, knowledge of pro-active methods of combating both, and acts as a medically informed, objective 'life coach.'
I mean, damn, what does a physical trainer do if not just talk to you? Why not go to a priest or faith healer to get your calves real swole? What does a financial advisor do if not just talk to you? Why not go to a priest or a faith healer to manage your 401k?
The ignorance displayed at this:
> If so, can they explain how talking to a psychologist cures a medical condition?
Is just sort of flabbergasting. Not all the reasons you go to a therapist are for medical conditions; many therapists are MDs; therapy doesn't just consist of talking to someone; like any other field, it has tons of study and many experts, people who know better than you do, and quite often it helps to talk to an expert.
If that comes off as harsh - I apologize - especially if you are someone who is on the fence about therapy. I sincerely suspect, however, you are not, and, instead, just assaulting the idea that therapy is even remotely a worthwhile pursuit. It is.
> How long does the period of continued employment need to be in order to be considered further consideration?
Non-zero.
In reality, my guess is that because courts don't love to see non-competes overbroadly upheld in the fist place, if you have a super restrictive non-compete that was given to you in exchange for $20, and it was given to say, a burger flipping teenager, or someone with dubious employment status, or huge medical bills, something else that made it an unequal bargaining position, it is very likely a court would reduce the scope of the non-compete or throw it out completely.
There are no hard and fast rules in non-compete-land. Courts can and do throw them out or reduce their geographic or conceptual boundaries relatively often. And the rules are not particularly byzantine or arcane - they are pretty straightforward. Sophisticated parties making a deal that includes valuable consideration in exchange for a business restriction will be upheld - a punitive contract for little money that basically prevents a worker from practicing his fungible skillset and keeping out of the taxpaying economy may not be.
Gambling is legal in only a tiny handful of places and in the few places where more casinos have recently been authorized, NY state (my state) included, it has been a hugely controversial decision. In NY State, the rationale was certainly not that gamblers benefitted, but that the added tourist attraction of creating casinos in depressed communities will boost the local economy. I think this was a patently bad decision and I'm certain that history will bear me out, that the local economies will not suddenly prosperous and quite to the contrary, all of the low grade crime associated with risk seekers, substance abusers and the profligate will now infect these communities as well.
The whole reason we have the SEC in the first place is to protect the credulous from the sharks.
I don't anticipate this type of crowdfunding taking off, quite honestly, and I don't know that this is a problem. We want the middle classes putting their assets in places safer than just betting them on papa's mustache in the third - which is what unsophisticated startup investing basically is. Except there is a much greater chance that a random horse picked with a dartboard is going to have a return than a random startup will.