rgifford

7 ms·

1.
Ask HN: Protective Puts for Equity Compensation?
1 points by rgifford 2y ago|0 comments
2.
by rgifford 3y ago
LLMs have been around since the 50s. Chomsky has plenty to say on them [1]. It's not half as rosy as the current hype cycle. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chat...
3.
by rgifford 3y ago
The machine building itself is end game. At that point you're suggesting singularity. I don't see how any profession survives that. There's so much hype around AI right now, it's absolutely unhinged. Yes, we have semi-co
4.
by rgifford 3y ago
Sociopaths, the clueless and losers. This great essay analyzing The Office argues that in a modern business context you're one of the three. [1] Those "functional elites" you mentioned? Usually they're working 20-50% mor
5.
by rgifford 3y ago
> That would be a bad bet. It's a terrible bet. But it's the direction American corporate leadership has overwhelmingly been heading for the past couple decades [1] [2]. I get the sense you've had the good fortune to run a
6.
by rgifford 3y ago
I agree: Conflict resolution, public speaking, salesmanship -- they're all valuable. They make for better people in this world. When it comes to how these traits translate to the success of leaders or companies? I have no idea. I'
7.
by rgifford 3y ago
You're missing what the previous commenter said. There are a lot of ways in which companies can succeed simply by their timing, or a couple incredibly lucky early hires, or first mover advantage in a growing space, or the right VCs --
8.
by rgifford 3y ago
Lack of corporate regulation and labor organization have led to a real asymmetrical arrangement for workers. It's a classic power imbalance. CEO-to-worker pay is at its highest level in 100 years [1]. Seems to me senior corporate leade
9.
by rgifford 3y ago
Oddly I quite like these people -- provided they're internally and externally consistent. It's refreshing to say, "you're being an asshole" and have a friend go, "oh my bad, I do that sometimes." Most youn
10.
by rgifford 4y ago
I don't own multifamily property in SF, so I'm not whining about my ability to do anything. When tenants rights are restrictive enough property owners view tenants as a liability and that sets up perverse incentives that cause ine
11.
by rgifford 4y ago
The vacancy rate doesn't tell the whole story. Short term rentals and self reporting likely mask the effect I've mentioned. I generally agree, SFs problem is 100% supply. But I think that ends up being caused by slow approval proc
12.
by rgifford 4y ago
People buying a second home are not the problem. A healthy housing market needs rental housing stock. We have to have places for people in transitory phases of life, for people struggling, for retirees that want to live off the value of the
13.
by rgifford 4y ago
> the casual way you say "you could evict" makes me think you don't appreciate that that's someone's home... It's their home and your property. I'm not advocating anything crazy. As that hypothetical la
14.
by rgifford 4y ago
Why are these properties vacant? I'm pretty familiar as a renter and property owner with tenants rights in SF. If I were to buy a duplex in the city I would never ever ever rent out the extra unit. I'd lie about tenancy, ask a fri
15.
by rgifford 4y ago
I posted something to this effect elsewhere, so forgive me for repeating myself. I do want to get your take though. First, the implementation of the fine isn't so important as the fine itself. Most landlords are individuals that own a
16.
by rgifford 4y ago
> Most people don't think you should be able to buy up a precious thing and squander it. What does it mean to "squander" and who decides? I'm pretty familiar as a renter and property owner with tenants rights in SF. I
17.
by rgifford 4y ago
It's pretty coercive. Taxes are levied against transactions. A tax in the absence of a transaction is really just a fine. And fining people for not selling something violates most folks conception of basic property rights and privacy.
18.
by rgifford 4y ago
> ...unless the org is completely dysfunctional they are responsible for the ultimate deliverables. This is true in theory if everyone has perfect knowledge. In practice I've never seen it play out. A large part of management is fra
19.
by rgifford 4y ago
Yeah, bullshitting is draining. I wonder, why? Sisyphus was condemned to aimlessly push a rock forever, but isn't that basically just the human condition? Most of us convince ourselves we're doing something, but it's narrativ
20.
by rgifford 4y ago
I guess it's all relative. To be honest, I would be over the moon to never "work" again. Don't wanna be needed, don't wanna have to report to anyone, don't wanna be part of a pyramid scheme earning some CEO or
21.
by rgifford 4y ago
This is hilarious. You're wrong for like every reason, but I'll give you 3: 1. Berkshire has not significantly outperformed the S&P500 for 20 years. Go take a look, they've basically converged. Markets become more competi
22.
by rgifford 4y ago
I have a buddy that's a wealth advisor with a high net worth (100M+) wealth management firm. Wealth preservation -- and really diversification -- is all ultra-high net worth folks care about. They buy lots of index funds. I'm not
23.
by rgifford 4y ago
I disagree. There's an ableist, patronizing assumption to be analyzed here: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional har
24.
by rgifford 4y ago
People who are overweight should not be accused of being similar to corporations that misallocate and overspend (i.e. fat corporation, bloated spending, etc.). Anemic, impotent, bald, and on and on. Language is abstract. Some conditions are
25.
by rgifford 4y ago
Are the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" harmful when used abstractly and negatively? Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People
26.
by rgifford 4y ago
Can we abstractly use the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" abstractly and negatively? All describe generally disfavored conditions folks don't have much control ov
27.
by rgifford 4y ago
Is "fat" harmful? Could we say a company overspending is fat or bloated without offending? What about "impotent" or "bald," are they harmful? Can we use them abstractly without offending? What about "anemi
28.
by rgifford 4y ago
Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of the generally accepted disfavor of your condition? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, behind your back, by throngs hell-bent on pretending
29.
by rgifford 4y ago
This always cracks me up. Handicap, disabled, retard, and on and on. The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless. But as soon as a term gets co-opted as an insult, we all agree to ditch it. And why? From what I can tell it'
30.
by rgifford 4y ago
Sure, that statement is a bit of a non sequitur. Here's one that isn't: Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing

More ›