One thing to keep in mind, with something like this, employees' stock is almost certainly worth $0. There will likely be some sort of retention plan for some set of employees, but their stock in GA probably won't be worth anything. The founders will likely have some sort of bonus, and the investors will make some money (not home-run money, but money). I guess they deserve a congrats, but to me it's worth remembering that most likely employees, who viewed their stock options as a part of their compensation, will be left with nothing but a thank you.

That's part of it, but not all of it. Total number of outstanding shares (including warrantable shares!) can change the complexion of things a lot. And then there's the question of preference -- deals that a company made years ago can make for a big difference in share value.

Unless a company has an incredibly clean cap table, a rank-and-file employee will never really know how much their shares are worth until they are either worthless, or have a cash-in-hand buyer. What you're talking about is the general case of "things are moving in a pretty good direction", and that's important. But to really gauge value of a stock option is much, much more complex (and is constantly changing!). Even if an employee were able to come to a reasonable estimate of common stock value, one bad month can wipe that away (an emergency $5m round to make payroll? a loan backed by stock? a long-term lease backed by stock?).

This is an interesting thing to consider. If you look at the current president of YC (sama), at least from an outsider's perspective, he's the beneficiary of exactly the type of behavior you're trying to get away from. Based on his company's exit, he is now a VC, but his company was acquired for essentially what it raised, meaning the employees' stock was likely worthless. I have absolutely nothing personal against sama, but let's remember that YC doesn't exist as a charity, it's a business.

Hm? In the stock market, you pay a current stockholder for their share(s). The company sees no money from the transaction. It sounds like what you're thinking of is banking, which is something different.

I agree with what I think you're saying, that we should be careful about allowing someone to sue someone out of business simply out of spite; however, I think there's something to be said for someone with deeper pockets funding a legitimate suit. It might be comparable to things that the EFF funds, or that the ACLU takes on -- they have deeper pockets, and can take the financial hit that someone with a legitimate claim may not be able to take.

Imagine if Gawker published the same thing of some average middle-class person. They can't afford a high-priced lawyer, so likely Gawker gets away with something that, if it went to court, they would lose. In this case, the bully ran into someone who actually could fight back. As far as I know, Thiel didn't fund endless lawsuits just hoping to run them out of money. He funded a legitimate lawsuit that ended up with Gawker being found in the wrong for.

This article talks about one: it's impossible to have this discussion with most people (including friends and family) because as soon as someone questions the generally accepted opinion, they're put on the defensive (in this case: "OMG why would you defend a molester?"), and the entire discussion becomes one of trying to defend yourself, and not about what you're trying to discuss.

The same thing happened with the Googler who questioned the idea of whether the tactics used for trying to improve Google's male-vs-female pay discrepancies. Instead of anyone responding to points he made in any sort of rational way, the discussion was immediately turned into "how can you defend someone who says women are worse than men?" -- not at all the case, but a quick way to avoid a factual discussion by pigeon-holing a person who dares to deviate from the generally accepted opinion.

This has also spread to politics: it's impossible to have any sort of reasoned debate about "hey, maybe isn't literally the devil across the board" -- the conversation immediately becomes one of trying to undermine the person ("OMG I can't believe you're defending Franken, a man who has assaulted women!").

It also happens when people try to debate things like whether the "Yes means yes" laws are useful, reasonable or effective; I've never seen a reasonable discussion about this (online or in real life), because if anyone questions it, they're immediately on the defensive, trying to argue that no, they're not defending rapists, and no they're not against a safe environment for women. Politically, it's brilliant marketing, because there is absolutely no way to argue against it without being immediately pigeonholed as a rape-defender, and then spending all of your time trying to dig out of a hole that you've been put into.

It's unhealthy, and I think leads to echo chambers -- no one dares to voice an opinion unless they know people will agree with them. And this ultimately makes the problem worse, I think, because without a reasonable dialogue about issues, and without being able to accept the fact that people may have logical reasons to disagree with you, I don't really understand how things will get any better.

Edited: Dialog -> dialogue

You keep using the word "coordination", and I guess I just don't see it applying in the way I think that you mean. There are other, perhaps better, ways to coordinate than governmental intervention. You've said that boycotts don't work, but I'd say that if the market doesn't want a product, it will fail; why does a government have to enforce that? A boycott may fail because a loud minority isn't representative of the overall market; isn't that the behavior you want?

You may find the references to some communist revolutions distasteful, but I think it's an appropriate comparison in that folks see government as the solution to a problem that markets solve really well. I specifically didn't say that what you're espousing will lead to 50m deaths, but I do think it's a useful tool for showing where government can take on too big of a role with regards to things that markets are very efficient at doing themselves.

>"I suppose I'm fine with that static-ness."

Isn't Hacker News full of people that explicitly disagree with this? That static laws are a big tool for incumbent companies to build their moat, and entrepreneurs try to break those down in ways that are intended to be better for everyone. Maybe you disagree (which I respect), but in many ways, static laws look good on the surface but have real downsides in the long run.

> aka smart homes that secretly advertise to you.

I don't think that these things should be done secretly. I think companies should have to make this information available to consumers, and I think the government should enforce this to some degree (e.g. if a company is recording my phone calls to send back to their headquarters, absolutely it should be known).

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990911

I guess as an investor, I don't see why I'd buy Spotify shares from an existing shareholder -- my "investment" is not going to the company, it's a bit like buying shares on the market of a mature company, except Spotify isn't that -- it's a money-hole with a highly questionable future. Is there any reason for someone to buy existing shares to expect things to turn around? They aren't getting a capital infusion, it's business as usual except with the additional burden of being a public company.

> I believe the same things about markets/government. Why should we purposefully handicap ourselves to the individual realm stuck with Echo with ads when we can go to the collective realm to grant ourselves a better outcome.

This is something I think we disagree on: I don't see this as a handicap at all. I also disagree that the better outcome is to grow the government's role in something like this. To me, this is a case where the so-called "invisible hand of the market" is the way to go: ensure that consumers have access to the information they need, and let consumers make the best decisions for themselves.

> If the people collectively decide that then yes.

I think we have to be very careful about how this is used; people collectively decide silly things all the time ("Pink Slime" comes to mind, for some reason), and we have to be very careful about how we encode things into law. Once the government is responsible for something, it's hard to walk back on that. Leaving things to the market leaves things in a more fluid state, in my opinion.

> To me, a useful way to think of markets is as a very sharp knife: it can be extremely useful in the right situations, but you can really hurt yourself if you're not careful.

This may be true to some degree, but it aligns pretty well with people's changing opinions and wants/needs. If we're careful about some things (e.g. monopolies, access to information, etc -- things that allow markets to work efficiently), we can avoid having to bring out the sledgehammer when it's not needed. Some of the early 20th century government involvements led to humanitarian crises (the Communist revolutions in China and Russia); that's not to say that governments necessarily lead to the worst situations, just that sometimes markets are better at things than government involvement. This is a case where I believe this to be especially true.

I find that sort of thinking pretty scary. I'm incredibly hesitant to expand the purview of the government into whether products should succeed or fail. It sounds like what you're saying is that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so we should enact government regulations to think for them. This is something markets are very good at, as others have stated. Expanding the government's role in things should be an absolute last resort, to me.

If people are willing to trade their personal information for cheap, cool gadgets, then who is the government to step in to say "no, you're not allowed to do that"? By the same token, you could flip it around: could the government step in and say "you don't want this gadget that's always listening to you, but you have to have it because some group you don't agree with tells you to"?

I want to be careful not to go too slippery slope, but should the government step in and shut down Google, because they exist to serve ads? What about Facebook? It's the same thing there: people trade their personal information for perceived value in other places (Facebook: keeping in touch with people, Google as access to information). Should the government be the ones to decide who should be allowed to make decisions about their information?

It's scary because once the government gets to decide what people should and shouldn't be allowed to use, or what products should or shouldn't succeed, it can be used as an incredibly powerful tool. To me, a useful way to think of government is as a very sharp knife: it can be extremely useful in the right situations, but you can really hurt yourself if you're not careful.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the government shouldn't be responsible for certain infrastructure, it's the degree to which the government should be involved, and what its role should be. If I put on my more conservative hat for a minute to make an argument, I think the idea is that the government should be somewhat of a last resort for things, and that less is more when it comes to government involvement.

Part of the reason for that is that once the government is involved, it changes the incentive structure quite a bit. Using other infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, etc) for examples that others have pointed out, they're a great way to raise taxes earmarked for those projects, but then that's when politicians start to play games and move money around to their own projects, and now the roads are falling apart, so we need to raise taxes to pay for the roads!

It's also somewhat tricky because once something is a government project, it's basically that forever. It's fairly rare for something to go back to the private sector once it has become a government program. What is more likely is that the solution is more government involvement, and that's something that conservatives tend to view as a bad thing.

Obviously I'm not speaking for all conservatives, and this isn't even necessarily my own viewpoint, but I wanted to push back against the idea that "conservatives just want what's worst".

Common stock will probably be worth $0, and the employees Apple wants to keep will get a new stock vesting schedule for Apple stock.

Politically, the story would be something like this: why should you, a multi-millionaire SW engineer who hasn't paid taxes on your 401k not pay your fair share so that these other folks can spend some time with their families? After all, they were the victims of predatory lending! Close the loophole that allowed your opulent lifestyle!

And remember, 401ks are a multi-trillion dollar market of untaxed dollars. Do you really think tomorrow's politician in 30-40 years is going to miss that, never mind their constituents?