My read on this is that a lot of the things in Ben’s post are very between-the-lines rather than outright stated. For example, the financial issues all basically only matter if we take for granted that the employees were tricked or manipulated into accepting lower compensation than they wanted, or were put in financial hardship.
Which is very different from the situation Kat’s post seems to show. Like… I don’t really think any of the financial points made in the first one hold up, and without those, what’s left? A She-Said-She-Said about what they were asked to do and whether they were starved and so on, which NL has receipts for.
[Edit after response below: By “hold up” I meant in the emotional takeaway of “NL was abusive,” to be clear, not on the factual “these bank account numbers changed in these ways.” To me hiring someone who turns out to be financially dependent into a position like this is unwise, not abusive. If someone ends up in the financial red in a situation where they are having their living costs covered and being paid a $1k monthly stipend… I am not rushing to pass judgement on them, I am just noting that this seems like a bad fit for this sort of position, which I think NL has more than acknowledged, and if they misled NL about their financial security, that further alleviates NL of some responsibility]
Ok, so maybe it’s just a shitty job offer despite the apparent perks? Maybe it is for many people. That doesn’t mean adults shouldn’t be trusted to understand what they’re getting into and use their agency to pull the plug. Regrets after the fact are not the same as manipulation or deception on NL’s part.
And this would still be fine if Ben’s post just said “There are EA orgs making job offers that I think put their employees in vulnerable positions, so people should be more careful about accepting them.” I would even agree to that kind of post, especially if it came after talking to NL about its job offers (which they already apparently said at the time that they’ve reconsidered after the experiences they had).
But what it said was “These people are predators who chew up and spit out bright eyed altruists.” And that feels like a very strong judgement to make, and makes me glad that Kat posted the details about the financial stuff even if it wasn’t claimed directly in Ben’s post to be the result of deception. Because if it’s not… why was it brought up at all? Dislike of the job offers feel like a clash of vibes and difference of opinion on best practice, not predatory action.
But what people are left with from Ben’s post is an impression that there was a pattern of abuse and predatory action, and the financial aspect is really important for that. That impression is not solely on Ben’s shoulders; even if Ben’s article is written largely from the perspective of what he believed from what he saw. I think if NL is even half-correct in these rebuttals, Ben was clearly influenced to some degree to reach that conclusion by Chloe and Alice… not even necessarily intentionally, which is why I hesitate to use the word “manipulated,” but just by the nature of how people who feel victimized will naturally selectively tell their side of the story.
This generally applies to the rest of your bullet points, so yeah, I think Ben’s hypothesis that “2 EAs are Secretly Evil” is a pretty good summation of his post’s takeaways, given the assertions he made at the end.
I feel like this response ignores my central points ― my sense that Kat misrepresented/strawmanned the positions of Chloe/Alice/Ben and overall didn’t respond appropriately. These points would still be relevant even in a hypothetical disagreement where there was no financial relationship between the parties.
I agree that Ben leaves an impression that abuse took place. I am unsure on that point; it could have been mainly a “clash of personalities” rather than “abuse”. Regardless, I am persuaded (partly based on this post) that Kat & Emerson have personalities that are less honest, kind and self-reflective than typical EAs, so that probably few EAs would be happy working for Nonlinear as “part of the family”. But to judge properly, I think I’d have to hear what other remote/former employees think about NL.
what it said was “These people are predators who chew up and spit out bright eyed altruists.”
I think there should be a norm against treating paraphrases as quotes. What it said was “I expect that if Nonlinear does more hiring in the EA ecosystem it is more-likely-than-not to chew up and spit out other bright-eyed young EAs who want to do good in the world. I relatedly think that the EA ecosystem doesn’t have reliable defenses against such predators.”
I feel like this response ignores my central points ― my sense that Kat misrepresented/strawmanned the positions of Chloe/Alice/Ben and overall didn’t respond appropriately.
And I disagree, and used one example to point out why the response is not (to me) a misrepresentation or strawman of their positions, but rather treating them as mostly a collection of vague insinuations peppered with specific accusations that NL can only really respond to by presenting all the ways they possibly can how the relationship they’re asserting is not supported by whatever evidence they can actually present.
For goodness sake, one of your points is in the distinction between “told” and “advised.” What, exactly, do you expect NL to say to clarify that distinction that’s more important than the rebuttal of pointing out they invited the boyfriend to travel with them for 2 months? “No, we didn’t say that, nor did we advise it?” There’s no evidence they did say it or “advise” it in the first place! How does a simple denial better rebut either the claim itself or the underlying implications?
These points would still be relevant even in a hypothetical disagreement where there was no financial relationship between the parties.
I think it would be absurdly unfair to take for granted that the non-financial aspects are represented in a non-misleading way if the financial aspects are misrepresented, which is part of why I highlighted that particular point.
What Ben was told by Alice and Chloe seems to me at this point basically entirely a set of “technically true but ultimately misleading” things, along with some strictly false accusations by Alice/Chloe. I’m confused by the insistence that these rebuttals are strawmanning their positions when their positions are themselves dependent on an overarching relationship and vibe and emotional experience, and not a specific set of claims backed by evidence of wrongdoing.
It would be a different story if they had provided their own proof and then NL ignored that proof to instead disprove a different set of things.
I think there should be a norm against treating paraphrases as quotes.
I generally agree, but boy am I confused by your issue with my summarizing that paragraph with that quote. He directly calls them predators. He directly asserts they chewed up and spat out young altruists. If you disagree with either of those, or think there’s some meaningful nuance my quote missed, I’d ask you to explain why.
What, exactly, do you expect NL to say to clarify that distinction
I expect them to say “advised”. This isn’t Twitter, and even on Twitter I myself use direct quotes as much as possible despite the increased length, for accuracy’s sake. Much of this situation was “(s)he said / she said” where a lot of the claims were about events that were never recorded. So how do we make judgements, then? Partly we rely on the reputations of everyone involved―but in the beginning Kat and Ben had good reputations while (after Ben’s post) Alice & Chloe were anonymous, with only Chloe appearing to have a good reputation. So what then? Well, the community verifies what it can. The miswordings were verifiable.
It reminds me of a weird final exam I once took, which was worth something like 2⁄3 of my total grade and had 10 questions. 9 were about material that wasn’t taught in the class at all! So I answered about 1.3 of the 10, and… got a B+ in the course! How?? Presumably the instructors realized they made a mistake afterward and couldn’t just fail everyone, so they graded people based on that one question and a few quizzes.
That’s kind of like this. When much of the story is invisible to us, we judge based on what’s visible. How can we do otherwise? So Kat could’ve taken advantage of that by posting an impeccable defense that functionally countered the original narrative. They suggested K&E lacked honesty? Well, Kat could demonstrate perfect honesty in all verifiable respects. They suggested K&E were retributive? Kat could’ve conveyed a strong sense of kindness. The fact that she didn’t do these things reads as her “real” personality showing. “A leopard can’t change its spots.”
but boy am I confused by your issue with my summarizing that paragraph with that quote
Sorry, it’s just that in the past I’ve talked to lots of climate dismissives and I’ve become sensitive to their many tactics even in unrelated situations. One of them is misquoting.
It sounds like what you would be more convinced by is a short, precise refutation of the exact things said by the original post.
But I feel the opposite. That to me would have felt corporate, and also is likely impossible given the way the original allegations are such a blend of verified factual assertions, combined with some things that are technically true but misleading, may be true but are hearsay, and some things that do seem directly false.
Rather than “retaliatory and unkind,” my main takeaway from the post was something like “passive-aggressive benefit of the doubt” at worst, while still overall giving me the impression that Kat believed Ben was well intentioned but reckless. There are some parts that border on or are bad faith, like presuming that Ben’s reactions to evidence against his conclusions must be X or Y thing to justify posting anyway...
But even given that, I think the readers insisting this post should have just stuck to sterile fact-disputing can be both correct on some level, while still lacking in empathy of what it’s like to be in the position NL has been put in. I’m not saying it’s a perfect post, but the degree of tone policing in the face of claims like “they starved me” is kind of bizarre to me.
Sorry, it’s just that in the past I’ve talked to lots of climate dismissives and I’ve become sensitive to their many tactics even in unrelated situations. One of them is misquoting.
I care about the strict facts and I want to know how to contextualize the things that there’s no way for them to refute by simple “no we didn’t.”
While I agree that these are both helpful, I would have been most excited to see a clear separation between careful direct refutations (“here are several clear examples where Ben’s post contained demonstrably false claims”) and fuzzier context (“here is an explanation why this specific claim from Ben’s post, while arguably literally true, is pretty misleading”).
Which is very different from the situation Kat’s post seems to show. Like… I don’t really think any of the financial points made in the first one hold up, and without those, what’s left? A She-Said-She-Said about what they were asked to do and whether they were starved and so on, which NL has receipts for.
Which financial claims seem to you like they have been debunked? When I read through the summary of the financial situation in Ben’s original post, the content seems to hold up quite well:
The financial situation is complicated and messy. This is in large-part due to them doing very little accounting. In summary Alice spent a lot of her last 2 months with less than €1000 in her bank account, sometimes having to phone Emerson for immediate transfers to be able to cover medical costs when she was visiting doctors. At the time of her quitting she had €700 in her account, which was not enough to cover her bills at the end of the month, and left her quite scared. Though to be clear she was paid back ~€2900 of her outstanding salary by Nonlinear within a week, in part due to her strongly requesting it. (The relevant thing here is the extremely high level of financial dependence and wealth disparity, but Alice does not claim that Nonlinear failed to pay them.)
One of the central reasons Alice says that she stayed on this long was because she was expecting financial independence with the launch of her incubated project that had $100k allocated to it (fundraised from FTX). In her final month there Kat informed her that while she would work quite independently, they would keep the money in the Nonlinear bank account and she would ask for it, meaning she wouldn’t have the financial independence from them that she had been expecting, and learning this was what caused Alice to quit.
If you think these claims have been debunked, can you say where and in which way they are wrong?
There is one small thing in here that Nonlinear dispute, but do not provide hard evidence for, which is that her outstanding salary/reimbursements were paid back this quickly in part due to her strongly requesting it. I currently still believe this is true, though of course Nonlinear disputing it is some evidence.
However, I don’t see any evidence against any of the other claims in these two paragraphs. This still seems like a quite good summary of the situation.
Edit: I think Jeff below makes a valid point that it matters a good amount whether the late payment was for “salary” or “reimbursement” and I would consider the claim that it was reimbursement instead of salary a relatively direct contradiction with the relevant sentence.
Which financial claims seem to you like they have been debunked?
The original post uses the low amount of money in Alice’s bank account as a proxy for financial dependence and wealth disparity, which could often be an appropriate proxy but here elides that Alice also owned a business that additionally produced passive income, though there’s disagreement about whether this was in the range of $600/month (your estimate) or $3k/month (what NL claims Alice told them and shows a screenshot of Emerson referencing).
Being owed salary is very different from being owed reimbursements. We have a very strong norm (backed up legally) of paying wages on time. Companies that withhold wages or don’t pay them promptly are generally about to go out of business or doing something super shady. On the other hand, reimbursements normally take some time, and being slow about reimbursements would be only a small negative update on NL.
NL claims the reimbursements were late because Alice stopped filing for reimbursement, and once she did these were immediately paid. If NL is correct here (and this seems pretty likely to me) then this falls entirely on Alice and shouldn’t be included in claims against NL.
Another debunked financial claim: Ben’s original post has:
Chloe’s salary was verbally agreed to come out to around $75k/year. However, she was only paid $1k/month, and otherwise had many basic things compensated i.e. rent, groceries, travel.
An employment agreement stating $1k/month + expenses
NL texting Chloe before she started that the stipend was $1k/month and Chloe confirming
A transcript of the employment interview where NL told Chloe it was a $1k/month stipend + expenses, which they thought was about as valuable as a $70k/year salary.
I think in as much as the reimbursement claim is true, I agree with you that presenting it as “salary” was not to the level of accuracy that I think should be aimed for in posts like this, and I agree changes the interpretation of the facts a good amount.
I do think we currently just have Kat’s word to go for it, and I am curious whether I can get some confirmation or clarification from Alice on this, but I am currently also reasonably confident that the payment should be described as reimbursement and not salary.
I also am quite sad that Ben didn’t include mention of Alice’s side business in the post. I think it was definitely worth including. My current model is that NL is heavily exaggerating the size of that side-business, but it still would have been good to include (and we have notes from a call that mention the side business, so we did know about it). I also think nothing in the post directly contradicts that or heavily implied the absence of such a business (especially given that my current belief is that it basically didn’t make any money).
Consider the hypothesis that Alice lied to us about how much money the business was making. (I actually remember her telling me it brought in $5,000 a month. We chose the $3,000 because that seemed more charitable and was what Emerson remembers her telling him). Or that she lied to you about how much it made. Or both.
Everybody already agrees that she gives unreliable testimony. There’s also a clear motive. When she’s talking to you, she’s trying to seem maximally like a helpless victim, because otherwise she wouldn’t get the $5,000 or the support. When she was talking to us, she was trying to seem maximally successful as an entrepreneur so we would incubate her.
There’s also a clear motive. When she’s talking to you, she’s trying to seem maximally like a helpless victim, because otherwise she wouldn’t get the $5,000 or the support
Again, we did not promise any payment for anything until quite late in the process, and I think this came up before any kind of reward for any of this was discussed. I think this is misrepresenting the situation pretty badly.
Everybody already agrees that she gives unreliable testimony.
I do not think such generalizations should currently assumed to be common-knowledge. I think a huge fraction of the testimony she has given is accurate. There are a few places in which things Alice says do seem contradicted by things you are showing and saying.
The same is also true in reverse, where many claims in your post and appendix about (for example) stuff that Ben knew at different points in time, or claims you are making about what Ben or Alice or Chloe said are also demonstrably false.
In-aggregate I would still very substantially update if Alice claimed that something was true. I also do not think she lives up to my standards of precision and accuracy, but I would definitely not describe that in a kind of blanket statement as you do here.
Consider the hypothesis that Alice lied to us about how much money the business was making. (I actually remember her telling me it brought in $5,000 a month. We chose the $3,000 because that seemed more charitable and was what Emerson remembers her telling him). Or that she lied to you about how much it made. Or both.
Yes, I am considering that. I think it’s quite plausible she exaggerated how much money her business was making. I think that’s bad, but also isn’t something particularly terrible (I’ve seen many people do it over the years, and I think it’s pretty bad, but sadly also not uncommon). I also think it’s plausible you are misremembering or distorting the numbers she told you.
My current best guess is that she said some vague things to you about how much money it was making, which were probably exaggerated. Given the broader context and evidence, I would be quite surprised if the $3000 or $5000 is correct, and that she lied to Ben about by substantially downplaying how much money came from the business, though it is not impossible (I would give it like 10%-15%).
FWIW I think I don’t care how much money she actually made. I care how much money she said she made to NL, and how much she told Ben that she told NL she was making.
If she insinuated high to NL to get the job and then did not own up to that when talking to Ben, that is very hard for me to forgive. Even setting aside the idea that NL might not have hired her in the first place if she accurately represented both her skills and her financial dependence, thus avoiding this whole mess in the first place… it basically treated Ben as an arrow to be fired at people who she felt wronged by, and once again led in an additional way to this whole more recent mess.
And unless I’m misremembering, there’s at least a bit of evidence that Emerson believed she was making ~36k a year and said as much to her, which presumably was not corrected by her after, but even if it was… yeah, it doesn’t look great for Alice here, by my lights.
By “hold up” I meant in the emotional takeaway of “NL was abusive,” to be clear, not on the factual “these bank account numbers changed in these ways.” To me hiring someone who turns out to be financially dependent into a position like this is unwise, not abusive. If someone ends up in the financial red in a situation where they are having their living costs covered and being paid a $1k monthly stipend… I am not rushing to pass judgement on them, I am just noting that this seems like a bad fit for this sort of position, which I think NL has more than acknowledged, and if they misled NL about their financial security, that further alleviates NL of some responsibility.
Sorry for not making that more clear. To be extra clear, my takeaway here is “Ben seems like he was led to believe a particular narrative by selective information and the usual emotional spin of only hearing one side.” Not “Ben got specific facts wrong.”
My read on this is that a lot of the things in Ben’s post are very between-the-lines rather than outright stated. For example, the financial issues all basically only matter if we take for granted that the employees were tricked or manipulated into accepting lower compensation than they wanted, or were put in financial hardship.
Which is very different from the situation Kat’s post seems to show. Like… I don’t really think any of the financial points made in the first one hold up, and without those, what’s left? A She-Said-She-Said about what they were asked to do and whether they were starved and so on, which NL has receipts for.
[Edit after response below: By “hold up” I meant in the emotional takeaway of “NL was abusive,” to be clear, not on the factual “these bank account numbers changed in these ways.” To me hiring someone who turns out to be financially dependent into a position like this is unwise, not abusive. If someone ends up in the financial red in a situation where they are having their living costs covered and being paid a $1k monthly stipend… I am not rushing to pass judgement on them, I am just noting that this seems like a bad fit for this sort of position, which I think NL has more than acknowledged, and if they misled NL about their financial security, that further alleviates NL of some responsibility]
Ok, so maybe it’s just a shitty job offer despite the apparent perks? Maybe it is for many people. That doesn’t mean adults shouldn’t be trusted to understand what they’re getting into and use their agency to pull the plug. Regrets after the fact are not the same as manipulation or deception on NL’s part.
And this would still be fine if Ben’s post just said “There are EA orgs making job offers that I think put their employees in vulnerable positions, so people should be more careful about accepting them.” I would even agree to that kind of post, especially if it came after talking to NL about its job offers (which they already apparently said at the time that they’ve reconsidered after the experiences they had).
But what it said was “These people are predators who chew up and spit out bright eyed altruists.” And that feels like a very strong judgement to make, and makes me glad that Kat posted the details about the financial stuff even if it wasn’t claimed directly in Ben’s post to be the result of deception. Because if it’s not… why was it brought up at all? Dislike of the job offers feel like a clash of vibes and difference of opinion on best practice, not predatory action.
But what people are left with from Ben’s post is an impression that there was a pattern of abuse and predatory action, and the financial aspect is really important for that. That impression is not solely on Ben’s shoulders; even if Ben’s article is written largely from the perspective of what he believed from what he saw. I think if NL is even half-correct in these rebuttals, Ben was clearly influenced to some degree to reach that conclusion by Chloe and Alice… not even necessarily intentionally, which is why I hesitate to use the word “manipulated,” but just by the nature of how people who feel victimized will naturally selectively tell their side of the story.
This generally applies to the rest of your bullet points, so yeah, I think Ben’s hypothesis that “2 EAs are Secretly Evil” is a pretty good summation of his post’s takeaways, given the assertions he made at the end.
I feel like this response ignores my central points ― my sense that Kat misrepresented/strawmanned the positions of Chloe/Alice/Ben and overall didn’t respond appropriately. These points would still be relevant even in a hypothetical disagreement where there was no financial relationship between the parties.
I agree that Ben leaves an impression that abuse took place. I am unsure on that point; it could have been mainly a “clash of personalities” rather than “abuse”. Regardless, I am persuaded (partly based on this post) that Kat & Emerson have personalities that are less honest, kind and self-reflective than typical EAs, so that probably few EAs would be happy working for Nonlinear as “part of the family”. But to judge properly, I think I’d have to hear what other remote/former employees think about NL.
I think there should be a norm against treating paraphrases as quotes. What it said was “I expect that if Nonlinear does more hiring in the EA ecosystem it is more-likely-than-not to chew up and spit out other bright-eyed young EAs who want to do good in the world. I relatedly think that the EA ecosystem doesn’t have reliable defenses against such predators.”
And I disagree, and used one example to point out why the response is not (to me) a misrepresentation or strawman of their positions, but rather treating them as mostly a collection of vague insinuations peppered with specific accusations that NL can only really respond to by presenting all the ways they possibly can how the relationship they’re asserting is not supported by whatever evidence they can actually present.
For goodness sake, one of your points is in the distinction between “told” and “advised.” What, exactly, do you expect NL to say to clarify that distinction that’s more important than the rebuttal of pointing out they invited the boyfriend to travel with them for 2 months? “No, we didn’t say that, nor did we advise it?” There’s no evidence they did say it or “advise” it in the first place! How does a simple denial better rebut either the claim itself or the underlying implications?
I think it would be absurdly unfair to take for granted that the non-financial aspects are represented in a non-misleading way if the financial aspects are misrepresented, which is part of why I highlighted that particular point.
What Ben was told by Alice and Chloe seems to me at this point basically entirely a set of “technically true but ultimately misleading” things, along with some strictly false accusations by Alice/Chloe. I’m confused by the insistence that these rebuttals are strawmanning their positions when their positions are themselves dependent on an overarching relationship and vibe and emotional experience, and not a specific set of claims backed by evidence of wrongdoing.
It would be a different story if they had provided their own proof and then NL ignored that proof to instead disprove a different set of things.
I generally agree, but boy am I confused by your issue with my summarizing that paragraph with that quote. He directly calls them predators. He directly asserts they chewed up and spat out young altruists. If you disagree with either of those, or think there’s some meaningful nuance my quote missed, I’d ask you to explain why.
I expect them to say “advised”. This isn’t Twitter, and even on Twitter I myself use direct quotes as much as possible despite the increased length, for accuracy’s sake. Much of this situation was “(s)he said / she said” where a lot of the claims were about events that were never recorded. So how do we make judgements, then? Partly we rely on the reputations of everyone involved―but in the beginning Kat and Ben had good reputations while (after Ben’s post) Alice & Chloe were anonymous, with only Chloe appearing to have a good reputation. So what then? Well, the community verifies what it can. The miswordings were verifiable.
It reminds me of a weird final exam I once took, which was worth something like 2⁄3 of my total grade and had 10 questions. 9 were about material that wasn’t taught in the class at all! So I answered about 1.3 of the 10, and… got a B+ in the course! How?? Presumably the instructors realized they made a mistake afterward and couldn’t just fail everyone, so they graded people based on that one question and a few quizzes.
That’s kind of like this. When much of the story is invisible to us, we judge based on what’s visible. How can we do otherwise? So Kat could’ve taken advantage of that by posting an impeccable defense that functionally countered the original narrative. They suggested K&E lacked honesty? Well, Kat could demonstrate perfect honesty in all verifiable respects. They suggested K&E were retributive? Kat could’ve conveyed a strong sense of kindness. The fact that she didn’t do these things reads as her “real” personality showing. “A leopard can’t change its spots.”
Sorry, it’s just that in the past I’ve talked to lots of climate dismissives and I’ve become sensitive to their many tactics even in unrelated situations. One of them is misquoting.
It sounds like what you would be more convinced by is a short, precise refutation of the exact things said by the original post.
But I feel the opposite. That to me would have felt corporate, and also is likely impossible given the way the original allegations are such a blend of verified factual assertions, combined with some things that are technically true but misleading, may be true but are hearsay, and some things that do seem directly false.
Rather than “retaliatory and unkind,” my main takeaway from the post was something like “passive-aggressive benefit of the doubt” at worst, while still overall giving me the impression that Kat believed Ben was well intentioned but reckless. There are some parts that border on or are bad faith, like presuming that Ben’s reactions to evidence against his conclusions must be X or Y thing to justify posting anyway...
But even given that, I think the readers insisting this post should have just stuck to sterile fact-disputing can be both correct on some level, while still lacking in empathy of what it’s like to be in the position NL has been put in. I’m not saying it’s a perfect post, but the degree of tone policing in the face of claims like “they starved me” is kind of bizarre to me.
No worries, very understandable!
While I agree that these are both helpful, I would have been most excited to see a clear separation between careful direct refutations (“here are several clear examples where Ben’s post contained demonstrably false claims”) and fuzzier context (“here is an explanation why this specific claim from Ben’s post, while arguably literally true, is pretty misleading”).
(But this is hard!)
Agreed that would have been better!
Which financial claims seem to you like they have been debunked? When I read through the summary of the financial situation in Ben’s original post, the content seems to hold up quite well:
If you think these claims have been debunked, can you say where and in which way they are wrong?
There is one small thing in here that Nonlinear dispute, but do not provide hard evidence for, which is that her outstanding salary/reimbursements were paid back this quickly in part due to her strongly requesting it. I currently still believe this is true, though of course Nonlinear disputing it is some evidence.
However, I don’t see any evidence against any of the other claims in these two paragraphs. This still seems like a quite good summary of the situation.
Edit: I think Jeff below makes a valid point that it matters a good amount whether the late payment was for “salary” or “reimbursement” and I would consider the claim that it was reimbursement instead of salary a relatively direct contradiction with the relevant sentence.
The original post uses the low amount of money in Alice’s bank account as a proxy for financial dependence and wealth disparity, which could often be an appropriate proxy but here elides that Alice also owned a business that additionally produced passive income, though there’s disagreement about whether this was in the range of $600/month (your estimate) or $3k/month (what NL claims Alice told them and shows a screenshot of Emerson referencing).
Being owed salary is very different from being owed reimbursements. We have a very strong norm (backed up legally) of paying wages on time. Companies that withhold wages or don’t pay them promptly are generally about to go out of business or doing something super shady. On the other hand, reimbursements normally take some time, and being slow about reimbursements would be only a small negative update on NL.
NL claims the reimbursements were late because Alice stopped filing for reimbursement, and once she did these were immediately paid. If NL is correct here (and this seems pretty likely to me) then this falls entirely on Alice and shouldn’t be included in claims against NL.
Another debunked financial claim: Ben’s original post has:
Nonlinear provided screenshots of:
An employment agreement stating $1k/month + expenses
NL texting Chloe before she started that the stipend was $1k/month and Chloe confirming
A transcript of the employment interview where NL told Chloe it was a $1k/month stipend + expenses, which they thought was about as valuable as a $70k/year salary.
Thank you!
I think in as much as the reimbursement claim is true, I agree with you that presenting it as “salary” was not to the level of accuracy that I think should be aimed for in posts like this, and I agree changes the interpretation of the facts a good amount.
I do think we currently just have Kat’s word to go for it, and I am curious whether I can get some confirmation or clarification from Alice on this, but I am currently also reasonably confident that the payment should be described as reimbursement and not salary.
I also am quite sad that Ben didn’t include mention of Alice’s side business in the post. I think it was definitely worth including. My current model is that NL is heavily exaggerating the size of that side-business, but it still would have been good to include (and we have notes from a call that mention the side business, so we did know about it). I also think nothing in the post directly contradicts that or heavily implied the absence of such a business (especially given that my current belief is that it basically didn’t make any money).
Consider the hypothesis that Alice lied to us about how much money the business was making. (I actually remember her telling me it brought in $5,000 a month. We chose the $3,000 because that seemed more charitable and was what Emerson remembers her telling him). Or that she lied to you about how much it made. Or both.
Everybody already agrees that she gives unreliable testimony. There’s also a clear motive. When she’s talking to you, she’s trying to seem maximally like a helpless victim, because otherwise she wouldn’t get the $5,000 or the support. When she was talking to us, she was trying to seem maximally successful as an entrepreneur so we would incubate her.
Again, we did not promise any payment for anything until quite late in the process, and I think this came up before any kind of reward for any of this was discussed. I think this is misrepresenting the situation pretty badly.
I do not think such generalizations should currently assumed to be common-knowledge. I think a huge fraction of the testimony she has given is accurate. There are a few places in which things Alice says do seem contradicted by things you are showing and saying.
The same is also true in reverse, where many claims in your post and appendix about (for example) stuff that Ben knew at different points in time, or claims you are making about what Ben or Alice or Chloe said are also demonstrably false.
In-aggregate I would still very substantially update if Alice claimed that something was true. I also do not think she lives up to my standards of precision and accuracy, but I would definitely not describe that in a kind of blanket statement as you do here.
Yes, I am considering that. I think it’s quite plausible she exaggerated how much money her business was making. I think that’s bad, but also isn’t something particularly terrible (I’ve seen many people do it over the years, and I think it’s pretty bad, but sadly also not uncommon). I also think it’s plausible you are misremembering or distorting the numbers she told you.
My current best guess is that she said some vague things to you about how much money it was making, which were probably exaggerated. Given the broader context and evidence, I would be quite surprised if the $3000 or $5000 is correct, and that she lied to Ben about by substantially downplaying how much money came from the business, though it is not impossible (I would give it like 10%-15%).
FWIW I think I don’t care how much money she actually made. I care how much money she said she made to NL, and how much she told Ben that she told NL she was making.
If she insinuated high to NL to get the job and then did not own up to that when talking to Ben, that is very hard for me to forgive. Even setting aside the idea that NL might not have hired her in the first place if she accurately represented both her skills and her financial dependence, thus avoiding this whole mess in the first place… it basically treated Ben as an arrow to be fired at people who she felt wronged by, and once again led in an additional way to this whole more recent mess.
And unless I’m misremembering, there’s at least a bit of evidence that Emerson believed she was making ~36k a year and said as much to her, which presumably was not corrected by her after, but even if it was… yeah, it doesn’t look great for Alice here, by my lights.
Edited above comment to clarify:
By “hold up” I meant in the emotional takeaway of “NL was abusive,” to be clear, not on the factual “these bank account numbers changed in these ways.” To me hiring someone who turns out to be financially dependent into a position like this is unwise, not abusive. If someone ends up in the financial red in a situation where they are having their living costs covered and being paid a $1k monthly stipend… I am not rushing to pass judgement on them, I am just noting that this seems like a bad fit for this sort of position, which I think NL has more than acknowledged, and if they misled NL about their financial security, that further alleviates NL of some responsibility.
Sorry for not making that more clear. To be extra clear, my takeaway here is “Ben seems like he was led to believe a particular narrative by selective information and the usual emotional spin of only hearing one side.” Not “Ben got specific facts wrong.”