<story><title>World’s richest doctor gave away millions, then steered the cash to his company</title><url>https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/06/soon-shiong-philanthropy-business/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dxhdr</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;founders.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;founders.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;What We Look for in Founders&lt;p&gt;4. Naughtiness&lt;p&gt;Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They&amp;#x27;re not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That&amp;#x27;s why I&amp;#x27;d use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>mikekij</author><text>Back in early 2016, I was in awe of many of the &amp;quot;Unicorn&amp;quot; startups that were defying all odds to raise money and huge valuations, and earning the praise of the press world-wide. Zenefits, Theranos, Nant Health, Uber... clearly the founders of these companies were made of some entirely different material than I was. Their success was so awe inspiring.&lt;p&gt;Now, it seems as though ~100% of these sorts of companies are up to some shenanigans. It makes me seriously question the validity of any tech company that is lauded by the press.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mikekij</author><text>I would argue that:&lt;p&gt;1) Zenefits having software tools to specifically skirt state laws about employee certification requirements&lt;p&gt;2) Theranos lying about clinical results&lt;p&gt;3) Nant misrepresenting order data to their shareholders&lt;p&gt;4) Uber having a set of formalized HR processes that facilitate the sexual harassment of female employees&lt;p&gt;all go beyond &amp;quot;naughty&amp;quot;. Plus, I don&amp;#x27;t think that PG would be excited about the financial impacts that each of those behaviors have had on the respective companies&amp;#x27; share prices if he were a shareholder in those companies.</text></comment>
<story><title>World’s richest doctor gave away millions, then steered the cash to his company</title><url>https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/06/soon-shiong-philanthropy-business/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dxhdr</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;founders.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;founders.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;What We Look for in Founders&lt;p&gt;4. Naughtiness&lt;p&gt;Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They&amp;#x27;re not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That&amp;#x27;s why I&amp;#x27;d use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>mikekij</author><text>Back in early 2016, I was in awe of many of the &amp;quot;Unicorn&amp;quot; startups that were defying all odds to raise money and huge valuations, and earning the praise of the press world-wide. Zenefits, Theranos, Nant Health, Uber... clearly the founders of these companies were made of some entirely different material than I was. Their success was so awe inspiring.&lt;p&gt;Now, it seems as though ~100% of these sorts of companies are up to some shenanigans. It makes me seriously question the validity of any tech company that is lauded by the press.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kelvin0</author><text>Yeah, I am quite ambivalent about this &amp;#x27;rule&amp;#x27;. I think you start on a slippery slope once you can rationalize this type of behavior. Also, would you be comfortable explaining your actions to a journalist&amp;#x2F;public? If not, chances are there is shadiness occurring ...</text></comment>