mildbow

That's a good point. Thanks for bringing it up so I can clarify my position :)

It's not about calling one person a liar vs the other. Rather, it's about accepting that there are multiple sides to every story. Without an unbiased third party, it devolves into he said/she said.

If formal charges aren't brought forward (which would allow for more facts/third party analysis), then why should one person be denigrated? Should a hint of an accusation, sourced by third parties, be enough to fire someone over? If so, what does that firing actually solve?[0]

Anyway, I understand this is a trigger issue, esp. after Susan's post, but to over-react is as bad under-reacting: you want to fix the problem, and you can't do that when you are busy scapegoating.

[0] I'm talking about this specific case, not sexual harassment cases in general.

It's not just for the courts: I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Why? Golden rule: given a role reversal, I would like the same consideration.

Please note that the "headache" this seems to have caused is purely an external optics one. Not sure how great of a team you would have if you cut off members at first sign of issues.

Maybe the sort of dysfunctional mess Uber seems to have.

Internal, not external, optics are vastly more important in a company.

Yeah, I agree it should have been mentioned (literally my 2nd and 3rd lines)

But, this firing has the smell of being one for appearances, rather than actual culpability.

But then again, I don't know the actors so if anyone with additional info confirms that it's a fair firing, I would be happy to listen.

idk.

Should he have disclosed it? Of course, because that would have lessened the impact when it did come out.

Maybe he thought it was over and done with. And, since it was an allegation vs proven maybe he didn't want to muddy waters.

However, to say that an allegation must be reported when taking a new job is pretty harsh. Innocent till proven guilty surely?

>> "Uber execs found out about the situation after Recode informed them of the chain of events between Singhal and the search giant this week."

Punish the person responsible in Susan's case. If anything, this feels like a person's career was taken down due to a witch hunt.

To me, this action by Uber's executive team is not one of cleaning house: it shows a lack of spine.

Problem is those staff are seen as fungible and the onus is on them to show up. Didn't show up enough times? Well, you are fired. That's a pain point.

A colleague didn't show up: well crap now you have to be a team player and cover for them. That's a pain point.

A staff member didn't show up? That's an annoyance.

Wasn't trying to cast aspersions/take anything away: I think it's great that you are open sourcing anything. Kudos.

I was just pointing out that this infrastructure might have been great to start, but you guys moved to a very different, in terms of architecture , v2.

Keep in mind that this is the version 1 so might straddle the line between pet project and production.

IIRC, they built a version 2 due to various issues.

But, yeah, version 1 should definitely be built using tech that comes easiest to you.

There are a bunch of competitors and SMBs very much care about the price tag so 100s of dollars is a massive stretch[0].

Note that this alleviates the pain of the staff, not the business ie vitamin for the entity paying for it, but pain killer for their part-time workers.

But, I do agree pricing is out of whack. I would probably try to charge directly based on the number of staff managed (eg: $1/staff member/month).

[0] I run a startup selling to SMBs in the service sector. Upfront dollar amount is a massive hurdle. However, upsells/elastic pricing based on users is easier.

It's not about saying everyone or even most people in the US are racist. It's about considering whether a visit would be marred by the current miasma of (institutional?) racism/anti-immigrant sentiment.

For example: would you, as a US citizen, choose to visit Iran vs going somewhere else?

Alcohol doesn't kill people, people kill people? :)

Rationally?

No, you shouldn't drop your plans of visiting.

Why?

Why bother risking personal harm to visit a country that expressly doesn't seem to want you?

Edit: Would down-voters like to comment on why this isn't a valid stance?

You need to be a special kind of idiot to actually think that increases safety.

Is the fix to some countries having nuclear weapons that everyone has the right to nuclear weapons?

Or, have we come to the conclusion that non-proliferation is the answer?

This is one of the benefits of being a founder with YC/well-connected VCs.

Even if you burn though millions without figuring out a market, you will land on your feet (if you are on the executive team). Your employees? Not so much.

My words may sound negative, but my point is: most people who are working at startups should seriously consider starting one instead.