[ggm]

He wasn't in law enforcement, or a statutory role. He's a former marine.

I think this is a non-story. I don't like A16Z but this specific hire has nothing to do with it, and I see no causal trend here or reason to say anything about Andreessen from this hire.

I had an uncle who was a lower court Judge in the UK, who would hire ex-cons to work on his pigfarm. Cynics would say he wanted a cheap source of labour but the truth is (I am convinced) he saw the need for post-Jail employment, and that condemning prisoners to a life without work income was stupid and hurtful. I think also working with animals has been shown to be net beneficial to incarcerated people.

This guy did a stupid thing. I get that. It had lethal consequence. I get that too. I don't think this hire is evidence of any nefarious quality. If anything, it will cost them money.

(I would never for for Trump, and I think A16Z has bad effect on ICT investment)

[lovich]

If the man had experience in investing, then maybe you'd have an argument. As it stands you couldn't tell him from Adam when it comes to investment experience so the only plausible explanation for hiring him is that its political and thus says something about Andreeseen

[ggm]

People get hired for nepotism, for politics, for street smarts, for their smile, for the crease in their trousers, because the guy hiring them had a good morning, or because they're actually good at what they do.

You've called this one out as bad. Well, it probably is bad. if I invested through this company I'd be upset. But the thing is, its "hunt for keys under lampost, not because I lost them there, but because it's lit up" bad: You know this hire does not make much sense. The other hires, you are letting through because (I believe) you implicitly assume they can learn to do the job, all other bad reasons for hire not withstanding. Why can't he learn them too?

He can take instructions and work, and is physically robust. He survived in a harsh environment (or two). There are admirable qualities which imply he is educable and strong emotionally and phyisically. I wouldn't have hired him or the nepo baby. I wouldn't have put my money into this mobs hands. I didn't. If my superannuation fund did, I hope it returns at least at market norms.

[lovich]

> You've called this one out as bad. Well, it probably is bad. if I invested through this company I'd be upset. But the thing is, its "hunt for keys under lampost, not because I lost them there, but because it's lit up" bad: You know this hire does not make much sense. The other hires, you are letting through because (I believe) you implicitly assume they can learn to do the job, all other bad reasons for hire not withstanding. Why can't he learn them too?

I can’t tell if you’re taking the piss out of me or not. Do you really think that because no one’s perfect that means hiring someone with no experience in a complex job is equivalent to hiring someone with experience?

[Apocryphon]

A bad hire that creates a lot of PR is a bad PR move, as opposed to all of the other bad hires, but maybe a VC fund doesn't need PR.

[xcrunner529]

Should be illegal. Maybe it is. Trump banned DEI.

[quantified]

It won't cost them money. This is marketing "we are your people" to the American Dynamism segment.

[xcrunner529]

So…DEI.