upvote
> Real world facts tend to have sources that can verify them.

Sure. What I said is a real world fact is the base salary, which can be verified by any of their job postings, e.g. www.janestreet.com/join-jane-street/position/4274288002, where it says "Base salary is $300,000. Base salary is only one part of Jane Street total compensation, which includes an annual discretionary bonus".

The claim that has less direct sources is how much the TC ends up being. The figure I said is the one I've heard multiple times over, sometimes by JS employees themselves, so I assume it to be true

> If we were discussing this on a website originally created by Jane Street, I would find this a more compelling counterargument.

That's fair, but I used Graham just as an example of source that always gets upvotes here. Uncle Bob hasn't posted anything in a while, but if he did, it'd certainly trend here, so that might be a better example

> I find the motives of Jane Street to be more interesting precisely because my opinion on them is more malleable.

Yes, that's fair. I don't think it's impossible that JS would bot/astroturf like you're implying, I just don't think it's the case. By Occam's razor I find it's more likely that people do care for what they have to say, similar to P. Graham, Uncle Bob, or any sort of blogpost from Anthropic/OpenAI, etc. It's quite possible that they got to this stage due to intentional marketing, though, so I'll give you that

reply