Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | robryan's comments login

I think they would be much better off with the Spotify model. I would happily pay a monthly fee for a collection of all the major newspapers.

-----


That depends on the price.

I just checked out WSJ and NY Times. After promo, WSJ is $29/month. That's whether or not you want actual paper or just digital access. NY Times has various plans, one of the cheapest is about $16/month. So that's just two newspapers.

I'd gladly pay $20 or even $30 per month for full access to all the major newspapers. But the big papers would never agree to that, because their individual cuts of the pie would probably be too small.

-----


How often does the end offer end up being outside the range that you are initially considering for a position?

-----


I agree, this video makes it look like there was a strong chance that it could have been a success if the random variables on the way down aligned better. If it had of been they may not have learned and iterated based on this possibility and may have had a failure down the track.

-----


"but there isn't much coming out of google thats pushing the envelope these days for me."

What about things like the partnership with spacex and self driving cars?

-----


Isn't that the responsibility of the suppliers? Why should a customer of the suppliers also foot their bills to be more environmentally friendly.

-----


No. The problem with making it "the responsibility of the supplier" is that we are both offloading responsibility and then unwilling to pay the price for the proper handling of the waste.

So basically along with really low prices, the supplier is bundling a free absolution of our guilts along with their pollution! Ain't that grand.

-----


Yes, it should be the responsibility of the supplier. That's how every other balanced system works in economics. You only have issues when there is moral hazard when someone is allowed to shirk their responsibility. Trying to have someone downstream make up for it is a fool's errand.

In this case, the supplier should be required to put up collateral or purchase some kind of cleanup insurance for cleanup. i.e. there needs to be a basic regulation from the government on land granted to mining.

-----


I would say it's the responsibility of everyone in the supply chain. Less pass the buck and more ownership.

-----


In Australia the government has bought back vast amounts of water from land owners allocations to save a river system.

-----


Yes, I think most people would agree that creating a record of as many languages as possible before they die out is a good idea.

-----


I would imagine that a lot of them have jobs that may be from home but require frequent meetings in the area.

Other than that it might be for networking, or they might have all their friends in the area.

-----


I wonder with these arrangements, is there any pressure or implied pressure on people to accept a larger equity amount? Similar to the issue with unlimited vacation time.

-----


The one time I got that kind of offer, I got a lot of pressure from the hiring manager to take the most equity possible. They basically insinuated that doing otherwise was disloyal -- although, they cloaked the message in a super-positive tone, saying something like, "we are always really stoked when new hires choose the most equity possible because they believe in the mission". I know those words might sound squishy but trust me, there was no ambiguity about what they meant.

In retrospect I wish I had taken the higher salary.

-----


Seems to work pretty well for PayPal.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: