zlacker

>>whoish+(OP)
I'm not sure if meta discussions are allowed in these hiring posts, but I just want to remind people that effective yesterday California now requires job postings to include a salary or hourly wage range. Companies with fewer than 15 employers are exempt so it might not apply to all California based startups, but I already see multiple job postings here for larger companies which are clearly violating this new law.

I personally would love to see HN make this a requirement for all postings going forward and not just for the California based ones.

>>slg+4q
It's my opinion that posts like this ruin these discussions and more generally are what ruins forums as they grow in size. Above a certain size you get people who think they and their agenda is more important than the actual topic and the noise drown out the good that the forum is trying to do. I don't see a solution for public forums, but it's sad to see it happening.

>>versio+hu
In my opinion, pointing out to our fellows on this board that they are violating the law rises above “agenda” but if you want to call that noise I guess you’re entitled to your opinion

>>lovich+Tu
IMHO it is a worthwhile discussion, but not according to @dang's understanding of HN:

> HN is not a site for discussing legal matters per se, but only the ones that gratify intellectual curiosity, and only to the extent that they do. That is what we're optimizing for here.

Taken at face value, it is unclear if this particular discussion "gratifies intellectual curiosity"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20620430

>>TAForO+qA
This is less a discussion of the law it self and more a discussion on whether actively breaking laws directly on HN is acceptable. Framing it properly makes it much broader than simply a discussion on this particular law.