Hey, don't blame me (or Shamus, for that matter) if you choose to reject or ignore the given answer just because it's not complex enough for your expectations. Often the best answer is the simplest and most reliable, and if that's not enough for you, then again I say you should probably avoid the business world.geldonyetich said:Try 4) I was expecting something a little more comprehensive than, "in order to avoid getting ripped off by big companies, don't bother doing business with them." But, hey, thanks for assuming I was an idiot or trolling for not being satisfied with such an easy answer.Blackbird71 said:Avoiding business does not mean avoiding employment entirely; it means don't take a position in which you are involved in making hte business decisions for a company.geldonyetich said:Considering I've been unemployed for an extended period, I've been avoiding the business world rather excellently against my will.Blackbird71 said:Go back and read the article; more than being within the scope, the answer you are looking for is the crux of the article. If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice).
It's all very good advice to most people who don't bother to read articles, but I do, and I still couldn't pick up on it. How about you explain to it me, smart guy?
The whole point of the article was that the best way to avoid entanglements and legal repurcussions from unscrupulous companies is to not get involved with companies that have such a reputation and a history in the first place. That's exactly the point that the quote you mentioned "piqued [your] interest" was leading to, and it was the main thrust of the article, and if you couldn't get that, then I can only assume that you either 1) seriously lack in reading comprehension skills, 2) did not read the article in its entirety, or 3) are being willfully ignorant and/or a troll.
I just figured that maybe Shamus Young, as an industry insider, knew something a bit more comprehensive, such as how a small fish could work with a big fish in relative safety. That was the whole point of my original post.
Not that I expect you to care, but you may want to note for educational purposes that your critiques have just backfired. That you were unaware that I was getting at something below the simpler blanket solution establishes you're even worse at business than I am. That you automatically assumed I would miss something so obvious when I wrote it establishes you're worse at reading than I am.
Think what you will about my reading skills, but you're the one who implied that a thought you quoted from the article was never addressed or answered, when in fact the answer was the crux of the issue at hand. You wanted advice from an experienced industry insider? You got it, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose to accept it as such is your problem.