verite
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
10
Submissions
8
Member since
Jul 23
Recent submissions
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
I think AngelList is not strictly speaking empirical data -- it is what a company provides as advertisement, not what it is actually paying.
How one decides "empirical data", as well as "comparable companies" and "comparable candidate" are all subject to very broad interpretation.
For instance, GlassDoor has way lower salary numbers than AngelList. But they have their share of problems too -- while the numbers are empirical, they are often dated (and have no account of equity compensation)
Comment · 12 years ago
This is a really frivolous reason to sue. I don't currently want to out the company; if in the future I do, it would probably not be in a random HN comment :).
Comment · 12 years ago
i'm not sure i will ever get to find out why they took it back. but i think it is very unlikely that it is this post in HN. someone would have to be checking HN very religiously.
Comment · 12 years ago
the salaries are yearly and the % is over 4 years
Comment · 12 years ago
Er, nevermind I guess. My (written) offer got rescinded.
Comment · 12 years ago
Thanks for your help! I am certain that they like me -- I mean, I have an official paper offer that I can sign.
It is in Silicon Valley. I haven't disclosed salary history.
I thought they may agree to 100k and 0.2%, and/or I could use that as leverage to ask for more salary instead.
I would be happy with 100k and 0.2%, 120k and 0%, or anything scaled in between.
I had already read that post.
For battery space, the same factor of a few hundred still applies. Also I'm not sure where you looked up the volume of the Trump tower but wikipedia claims a floor area of 240,000 m^2 and I doubt people can walk in an area a foot tall. With a more realistic ceiling height of 3m, you'd be off by another factor of 10 there.
--> Closer to 1/1000 of land area for coverage and 100 trump towers for storage.
Your claim on it taking more energy to make a solar panel than it produces is likely untrue, but I don't have enough scientific background to quantitatively refute it. (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf claims a breakeven period of 2-4 years)