I don't get why so many people are attacking Vivek. Step back from trying to eval() every single tiny detail to death. The bigger point here is that he is helping shine a light on a huuuuuge pain for immigrant founders in the US that hasn't gotten much attention (or a solution), all this while. Why is that a bad thing?
The DEA has been cracking down on druggies since forever, and it's been beating the same drum ever since. Such a boring agency, find a new pet theme already. People already know drugs are bad, right? If it's not for people like Vivek, who else is going to get the attention of someone who has the political power to change the laws? All you naysayers?
The old adage holds: It doesn't matter what you good do on this planet, there will always be small % of people who attack you no matter what.
Disclosure: I went through the painful F-1, then H-1B route, and now that I have my (conditional) green card, now life begins: I'm burning my savings building a startup in Silicon Valley (hello Hacker Dojo!)
p.s. apologies for the slightly inflammatory comment, I generally don't get myself into frickin' drama on the internets, but this is a topic that hits a very very very sore spot for me, and I couldn't just not say anything.
Your stance seems to be that, because Vivek's piece agrees with you on a topic you feel strongly about, it doesn't matter if it's a lousy article that fails to make the point effectively. But you of all people should care about the article's ability to convince people who aren't already on board with your "bigger point." It's a bad thing because you do a disservice to your cause when you let people off the hook for making a persuasive argument just because they agree with you. It makes it look like you can't actually substantiate your position. If you're right, you should be harder on Vivek than anyone else to get him to make the point effectively.
Your point is perfectly valid, and maybe I should be harder on Vivek to make him better and what he is doing, because it's supposedly self-serving (although I should point out that I'm hardly a beneficiary of any such gains now, since I have already got past that immigration hurdle, as I have already mentioned above).
You're accusing me of siding with him because I agree with his point. When was the last time you sided with someone you didn't agree with?
That aside, you've dragged me down into debating a point smaller than the big picture I've just pointed. But I'll entertain you.
Again. We have a big problem. Only people with power to fix it can fix it. These people aren't doing anything. We need to get their attention. To get their attention, we need both "quantity" (more people saying it) and "quality" (sell the case better). You're arguing that I'm soft on the latter.
Sure, everything in life could be better. Just 1 more penny to my stock option price. Just one CSS tweak before I won't be embarrassed to show the public my prototype. The perfection argument means people don't ship.
Right now, we need more quantity. All these attacks on Vivek is hardly encouraging to the masses that reads it to also voice up and help with quantity. I'm not saying quality is not necessary. I'm pointing out that people are so focused on nitpicking on the finer details, but I don't see them getting of their lazy asses and doing anything about it that's actually moves the needle.
It's so easy being an arm-chair analyst. Let's see the naysayers do better than Vivek. Don't just say it - prove it. All this bickering don't do shit. Show me the money. Like in startups, everything's an assumption/hypothesis until you prove it.
I think you misunderstand. My point is exactly the point you're making in the last paragraph: Everything is speculation until you prove it, and this article does not prove much of anything. I'm not the one claiming that we have "a big problem," so I have nothing to prove. If you want to see change, it's up to folks like you and Vivek to show the rest of us the money.
I don't mean to sound hostile or bicker. I'm just saying, this is how influencing people works. If you want people to believe something, you need to convince them, not count on them to convince themselves. If your argument is unconvincing, it's in your interest to fix that, not berate people for noticing its weaknesses. Think of it like selling investors on your startup.
If you want to change things, making a strong case that convinces people they need to invest in your cause is probably a more efficient route than fumbling in front of a greater number of VCs. With a few exceptions, people who stand on street corners shouting things that they can't prove tend to destroy their credibility.
The DEA has been cracking down on druggies since forever, and it's been beating the same drum ever since. Such a boring agency, find a new pet theme already. People already know drugs are bad, right? If it's not for people like Vivek, who else is going to get the attention of someone who has the political power to change the laws? All you naysayers?
The old adage holds: It doesn't matter what you good do on this planet, there will always be small % of people who attack you no matter what.
Disclosure: I went through the painful F-1, then H-1B route, and now that I have my (conditional) green card, now life begins: I'm burning my savings building a startup in Silicon Valley (hello Hacker Dojo!)
p.s. apologies for the slightly inflammatory comment, I generally don't get myself into frickin' drama on the internets, but this is a topic that hits a very very very sore spot for me, and I couldn't just not say anything.