bonemachine

And actually, I specifically remembered the "counseled out of the organization" line as a sign that FB -- unlike many tech companies -- is actually tactful and respectful when it comes to letting people go for performance reasons (at least that stage in the process.

That's part of the reason why they call it "bootcamp."

That one day, suddenly, it will just be... the new normal.

But what else should we expect from the owners of a news portal that was, from the outset, itself nothing other than soulless and robotic, to its very core -- and whose passing almost no one is likely to mourn?

("No one", that is, except of course those who've recently found out they "no longer have a role with Patch", along with their unlucky dependents).

Talk about showing one's true colors.

   Some of the blows have been self-inflicted,
   like venture capitalists who compare progressivism
   to Nazism or who block access to public beaches.

So dreht sich alles auf der Welt.

  When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
  interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
  under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
  telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
  configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
  essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
  “development, implementation and use of the app” so as
  to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem that it was a lack of a paper trail that kept the principals of HSBC out of orange pajamas. But rather an apparent perception on the part of the government that they were essentially beholden to HSBC for the sake of, well, it's hard to say precisely (but you can chose whether you want to take the AG's concern about "jobs" at face value or not):

  In December 2012, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny
  Breuer suggested that the U.S. government might resist
  criminal prosecution of HSBC which could lead to the loss
  of the bank's U.S. charter. He stated, "Our goal here
  is not to bring HSBC down, it's not to cause a systemic
  effect on the economy, it's not for people to lose
  thousands of jobs."

See also: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/30/treasury-dep...

Shrem, at least, wasn't charged with "selling BTC" but for violating this thing known as the Bank Secrecy Act.

As it says in, you know, the article that was linked to.

Please restore to something reflecting the aesthetics of the HN front page -- and the essence of beauty and simplicity it embodies.

    http://www.kpcb.com/teams/partners-emeriti

Really now? Apparently he's still listed as a Partner Emeritus:

   http://www.kpcb.com/partner/tom-perkins

By continuing their relationship with KPCB long after leaving, they bring our portfolio companies the benefit of decades of deep experience.

It wouldn't work. No film depiction could possibly be as absurd as what has already been foisted onto our everyday lives already.

Pah.

There's no way that you can assess a how well a society helps its poor simply by looking at one metric (like charitable giving) alone. It's just silly, on the face of it.

That was the original author's point (give or take a few work categories, which I'm taking the liberty of throwing in for the sake of illustration).

The point the author was trying to get at was not that finance geeks don't provide any social utility.

Just that in any rational category of needs, the value they provide would have to rank far below the value provide by nurse practitioners (and schoolteachers, police officers, lawyers even... a zillion other working categories, in fact).

If today's financial wizards went away,

It's not just a question of "if." To all intents and purposes, the financial services sector as we know it today (both in its technical prowess, and in sheer size and scope) did not exist 30 years go. True, we didn't have Facebook or iPads then. But people managed to live healthy lives, raise children, have careers, buy houses, fight wars, etc, just the same.

So from one point of view, yes the financial services sector can be seen to grease certain wheels (like IPOs, M&A). But in the larger picture, (in the view of many) it doesn't seem to provide all that much value, in proportion to the resources (and brainpower) devoted to it. It also seems to generate no end of collateral damage (the recent mortgage crisis being just one example).

Except for secretive financial shops (if that's your thing) and temporary contracting gigs, they're almost never needed or useful.

Nearly all the good FT jobs are advertised publicly (and loudly). So just apply directly.

Agreed. Very muddled thinking, indeed.

No they don't.

Or that is: they sometimes work for your boss (or your customer), in the short run. But they don't work for you.

And when push comes to shove, that's who you need to look for, right?

There's no reason, other than a feeling that you're expiclity under the client (or employer's) thumb -- e.g. a short-term financial emergency; or you're feeling very early in your career, and that you can live without a shining reference from them, after you've made your way through the tunnel of pain they've laid out for you; or you just didn't vet the other party properly, and weren't aware of their manipulate (and perhaps sociopathic tendencies) -- to put up with death marches, ever.

All you have to do (absent one of the above-mentioned emergencies) is say, "I'm sorry about the external pressures you're facing, but asking me to put in these hours this doesn't seem to be in line with the parameters we set up at the outset for this project/job. It's also just not going to be good for your working relationship, in the longer haul. So either you're going to need to find additional resources to help you, or I'm going to have to pass."

It's not easy. But it's doable. And trust me, you'll respect yourself a lot more in the morning.

For further guidance and inspiration on this topic, please see:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Ways_to_Leave_Your_Lover