Hi there, I'm the CEO of Clerky! I think our support team has already replied to your email about this, but please feel free to let them know if you need anything else :)
That's not at all the conclusion of the article you linked to. In fact, that theory is discounted by it.
> Price points out, however, that none of these theories fully accounts for the taboo. Pig-rearing, after all, had existed for thousands of years in the region, even in times of drought, and many types of meat can harbor the larvae that cause trichinosis.
> For Price, the key piece of evidence is the sole reason given for the taboo in the biblical text—the fact that the pig “has hooves and does not chew its cud.” In other words, it’s unlike ruminants. He argues that this harks back to an era when the Israelites were simple pastoralists. As their descendants settled down in towns and cities, raising pigs became a more viable option. “This detracted from the fantasy of living like their ancestors,” says Price, prompting Judean priests to ban eating pork.
> Rosenblum argues that the pig taboo only gained special status with the invasion of the Levant by the forces of the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. These European conquerors enjoyed their pork, and pig consumption in the Levant soared. So did tensions between Judeans and their Hellenistic rulers, including the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt and the leaders of the Seleucid Empire based in today’s Iraq.
If you care to read the comments for the mentioned article (318 comments) including mine, perhaps you'll get the different perspectives on eating pork [1].
Although the article is a good one but the conclusions can be misleading because it's biased toward archeological evidences that most probably did not tell the entire story.
Just like the history of people migration you simply cannot rely on one aspect of archeological evidences alone by ignoring genetic and proto-languages, for examples.
The same with dietary constraints and prohibitions you need to take into account other evidences for example religions together with the other archeological evidences.
Although the article mentioned religions early on but it kind of dismissed them at the end. For me it's rather myopic view and incomplete methodology of doing research since you need to take every relevant aspects into account for your valid conclusions especially the other important factors in dietary constraints in this case the religious prohibitions.
I don't think that's accurate — the article doesn't dismiss religions at all, it examines theories for why religions have the taboo in the first place.
I'm not sure about you but for me the article seems to dismiss the religion factors in the conclusion towards the end although he started from the religious perspective but the weightage for the religion is kind of fade towards the end. The pork dietary constraint and prohibition from Abrahamic religious point of view, started since the beginning of humanity. But this very fact seems missing from the article's conclusion. And the fact the pork is the common dominator of the dietary constraint and prohibition across three major world's religion dietary constraint, it's the elephant in the room that's not addressed and highlighted clearly the in the conclusion [1].
Since Abrahamic religion is very strict on the dietary constraint on pork that strangely or anomalously ignored by the Christians, but not by Jews or Muslim. But apparently the Christians also ignored many religious ruling based on their own Bible including the controversial circumcision that the other two Abrahamic religions observed religiously (pardon the pun) [2].
If all the Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Islam and Christianity (world's three major religions) do follow and observe the pork dietary constraint and prohibition, recommended and ordained by their respective holy books, we are looking at more than half (simple majority) of the world populations are not eating pork due to religious prohibitions.
[1] Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork:
I have to say I am pretty surprised to see the negative sentiments toward Pave and salary benchmarking data in general here. Why is the assumption that salaries would always be lower given this data? It seems just as likely to inform companies that what they had in mind is below market or that they are under-compensating someone in light of market changes.
A company doesn't need to know they are under compensating for a role from a third party. They'll find out by the quality and number of applicants pretty fast. I've seen this in practice directly when we couldn't hire for certain roles, raised the range, filled the spots.
On the other hand, to know that other companies are paying lower and still able to deliver roughly the same work is harder unless you know how much they are paying.
I have to disagree. If you're not getting quality applicants, how do you know if that's because of your salary range, the default applicant pool, or something idiosyncratic to your company?
If you're a new startup founder, you don't always have a good sense of what the default applicant pool should look like. You might have a sense of what quality looks like but how would you know without recruiting experience what the mix of quality to non-quality applicants is supposed to be? There are many reasons why you might not be getting the number of quality applicants you want, and compensation is just one of them. Salary benchmarking data helps eliminate that as a possible cause.
You have a strange view of the world. People have limited hours to sell for money, so other than undifferentiated work (where you don't get recognized for performance), workers compete for the best jobs, and so more skilled workers will on average make more money. Another factor is that people do lots of shitty things if the money is enough. Salary is the most effective way to attract and retain people, other than if the company has dystopian practices (and even then...).
How do you explain people moving to the USA for better salaries and crap on European salaries when Europe affords workers more vacation time, more social nets, healthcare, etc? Because the USA pays more money.
I think there’s a pretty big gap between “salary is the most effective way to attract and retain people” and “the only possible reason you’re not getting as many quality applicants as you might hope for is salary”. As a very basic example, your standards for quality may simply be unrealistic.
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that a company paying to gain information that gives them an advantage in negotiation isn't going to freely give up that advantage.
You're assuming that the only reason to pay for Pave is to get a negotiation advantage. My point is that there are other reasons, for example, to make sure that you're not below market.
I've never run a company and probably have a chip on my shoulder, but I also think that it's a reasonable assumption that most employers want to pay as little as possible.
I guess my point is that without some sort of sense of the market, whether through Pave or something else, the motivation to pay as little as possible may lead some employers to have lower salary ranges than they would otherwise.
Hey, I’m one of the founders of Clerky :) The most common approach is to put the state where you’re located. That said, the more certain you are that you’ll be moving, and the sooner that move will occur, the greater chance that you might want to put down either the state you’ll be moving to or else Delaware. For example, if you’re 100% sure you’re moving from State A soon, but have no idea where you’ll be long-term, Delaware could make sense. Delaware is sort of a default fallback that some startup attorneys use if no other state would be an obvious choice.
Does the LLC own any of the IP? If it was set up correctly, it would, and you'd need to work with an attorney to convert the LLC to a C corporation. There's no online service I'm aware of that can do that safely.
When you're issuing yourself shares, you can have the attorney make the start date of the vesting backdated to account for the work you've already put in. E.g. you can backdate the vesting start date to a year and half ago.
OP — for startups (as opposed to a regular new small business) in the US, what would be in a "founders agreement" is typically handled across stock purchase agreements, IP and confidentiality agreements (either CIIA or PIIA agreements), company bylaws, and Delaware law. It is pretty rare for US startups to have one single "founders agreement". I think the reason why you read about them is that they may be more common for regular small businesses, and some people consider any new small business to be a startup. For our purposes, to paraphrase pg, a startup is a company that is optimizing for growth (as opposed to distributions to owners).
And to answer your original question, yes, we (Clerky) are what most YC companies use to handle everything described above (the others typically have cross-border setups that require more tailored paperwork from a law firm).
i heard the most important issues are cliff, vesting and the right of first refusal for selling shares. where would these issues typically be addressed?
It's important to also get the certified mail receipt physically postmarked by the USPS (it is possible to send certified mail without that). Also, it's a common best practice to include an additional copy of the election along with a self-addressed stamped envelope, and ask the IRS to date-stamp the copy and send it back to you.
Correct! We've always included spousal signatures on 83(b) elections. I would say the vast majority (if not all) forms I've seen from good law firms have explicit places for the spouse to sign.
Clerky | Senior Software Engineer | REMOTE | Full Time | Ruby on Rails
Clerky is the most popular way for high-growth technology startups to form, and we're also used by tons of top-tier startups for hiring and fundraising. We're launching powerful enterprise-grade software to helping attorneys and companies collaborate. We've invested a lot in architecture, maintainability, and testing, giving us a significant advantage as we build out functionality that founders and attorneys can currently only dream of.
We could be a good fit for you if you're interested in working at a startup (1) without the chaos of a move-fast-and-break-things environment, (2) that's small but extremely productive, and (3) that's profitable but has tremendous growth potential.
Hi! I applied some time last year and the company decided to not proceed with my application. When do you think will be a good time to try applying again? Thanks
