It is true: Soham Parekh admits working multiple full-time jobs at once, says it was necessary
Further exposure came via an exchange on X with Andriy Mulyar, CEO of Nomic AI, who confirmed Parekh worked there. Parekh stated he once held up to four concurrent roles, earning between $30,000 and $40,000 monthly. Mulyar later verified Parekh's identity and involvement.Another affected employer, Marcus Lowe of Create, described hiring Parekh after a strong interview performance but soon faced attendance issues. Lowe reviewed Parekh's GitHub activity and found code contributions to another startup, sync.so, during claimed personal downtime. He said the situation 'was a huge waste of time such direct immoral behavior felt worth speaking out about.'In addition to Lowe's account, several sync.so employees confirmed Parekh's involvement, supported by internal materials and online content showing his presence within their operations. The company declined further comment.The controversy has drawn attention to the growing trend of 'overemployment,' where workers take multiple remote jobs without disclosing full engagement. A Wall Street Journal report estimates about 5.5percent of Americans now hold two or more jobs—a trend accelerated by pandemic-era remote work freedoms. However, conflicts with employment agreements and fairness concerns have triggered scrutiny within startup communities, particularly among small teams reliant on full-time commitment.Following the public exposure, Parekh said he has accepted a single role with Darwin, a young startup. Darwin's founder and CEO, Sanjit Juneja, issued a statement expressing confidence in Parekh's skills: 'Soham is an incredibly talented engineer and we believe in his abilities to help bring our products to market.'advertisementParekh also responded via his confirmed X account, stating, 'I've been isolated, written off and shut out by nearly everyone I've known and every company I've worked at. But building is the only thing I've ever truly known, and it's what I'll keep doing.'He reassured that he has ended all other employment engagements and entered into an exclusive agreement with Darwin.- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Open defiance of courts': Lawyer who fought for a decade to get old vehicles banned on Delhi govt's U-turn
In 2014, Delhi-based lawyer Vardhaman Kaushik moved the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the Capital's choking air pollution crisis. A decade and orders from the NGT and Supreme Court later, a no-fuel ban on end-of-life petrol and diesel vehicles has barely lasted three days. On Thursday, in a letter to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) — the overarching statutory body for matters concerning air pollution — Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa had said that it would not be feasible to enforce the ban 'at this juncture', and 'immediate implementation… may be premature and potentially counter-productive'. The ban came into effect on July 1. The Delhi government's move has drawn sharp criticism from several quarters. According to Kaushik, the 'poor implementation' of the ban order is 'an open defiance of courts'. 'The (Supreme Court) judgment (on fuel ban) had come in long ago, in 2018… and it has not been executed,' Kaushik told The Indian Express. 'The fuel ban was only a way to implement the court's directions. The hue and cry over this now doesn't make sense.' 'This is not a new rule. These rules for end-of-life vehicles have been there for a long time. The judgment is not being taken seriously,' Kaushik said, adding that only a few vehicles have been impounded over the years. Kaushik dismissed the argument that the ban unfairly targets the middle class. 'People who can afford cars and sit in air-conditioned rooms are cribbing at not being able to sell their car at good rates… Their opinion should not matter,' he said. 'The larger population that cannot afford cars bears the brunt of air pollution.' He insisted that emissions, not the age of the vehicles, should be the focus. However, he underscored that age remains a legitimate proxy. 'Even if an age cap is put aside as suggested by the Environment Minister, the fact remains that a (Bharat Standard) BS III or a BS IV vehicle will always be far more polluting than a BS VI vehicle. The government needs to take a call at this juncture.' In April 2015, acting on Kaushik's plea, the NGT had laid the legal foundation for phasing out old vehicles from the Capital's roads. In 2018, the Supreme Court banned diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi. The legal backing for the ban was reinforced by the 2018 SC order, which had upheld the NGT order. 'The Transport Departments of NCR will immediately announce that all diesel vehicles more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years old shall not ply in NCR in terms of the order of the National Green Tribunal…,' the order had said. It also mandated the impounding of violators and directed that lists of such vehicles be published on the websites of the Central Pollution Control Board and respective transport departments. Following the CAQM's April order on enforcing a fuel ban, a phased rollout was planned, first in Delhi from July 1, then expanded to the districts of Faridabad, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and Sonipat in November. The plan was to expand the ban to the rest of the NCR from April 1, 2026.
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Promises kept': Donald Trump signs ‘Big Beautiful Bill' at the White House July 4 picnic
In a dramatic and highly orchestrated moment timed with 4th of July Independence Day celebrations, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed into law his much-touted 'Big Beautiful Bill' — a sweeping legislative package of tax breaks, welfare cuts, and immigration enforcement measures that could define his second-term legacy. Speaking at a desk set up on the White House driveway and flanked by Republican allies and Cabinet members, Trump declared, 'Promises made, promises kept, and we've kept them.' As Fourth of July picnickers watched on, the signing was followed by a thunderous flyover featuring fighter jets and stealth bombers, a tribute, Trump said, to last month's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities. 'America's winning, winning, winning like never before,' he added, visibly energised during his 22-minute address before enacting the multitrillion-dollar bill. The legislation, passed on a narrow party-line vote, extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and delivers on several core campaign promises, including: No taxes on tips or Social Security income $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamp programmes Expanded immigration enforcement Rollbacks of Obama- and Biden-era healthcare and climate policies Trump described the measure as a rocket boost for the American economy, telling supporters, 'Our country is going to be a rocket ship, economically, because of this legislation.' The bill passed the Senate by a single vote, with Republican Senator J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaker. North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who opposed the bill, later announced he would not seek re-election after facing Trump's public ire. Notably, not a single Democrat voted in favour. Conservative Representative Tom Massie of Kentucky was one of only two Republican dissenters and has since become a target of Trump's political machine. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the package will add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade and result in 11.8 million more Americans losing health coverage. Critics warn the bill is a massive wealth transfer from working-class Americans to the ultra-rich. Labour unions and Democratic leaders launched scathing attacks on the legislation immediately after it was signed. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler stated: 'Today, Donald Trump signed into law the worst job-killing bill in American history. It will rip health care from 17 million workers to pay for massive tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations, amounting to the country's largest money grab from the working class to the ultra-rich.' 'Every member of Congress who voted for this devastating bill picked the pockets of working people to hand billionaires a $5 trillion gift.' Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin echoed those sentiments, calling the law 'devastating' and claiming it 'sealed the fate of the Republican Party, cementing them as the party for billionaires and special interests — not working families.' Unfazed by the criticism, Trump claimed Democrats opposed the bill out of 'hatred of either the country or me or both,' adding, 'We can't let them get away with it.' 'It's actually just the opposite, everybody's going to live,' Trump said in response to warnings that the bill would harm millions. 'And I just want you to know, if you see anything negative put out by Democrats, it's all a con job.' In a speech in Iowa a day earlier, he added, 'They hate Trump — but I hate them, too.' While Donald Trump insisted the package is 'very popular,' polling paints a more complex picture. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll revealed: Majority support for eliminating taxes on tips and increasing the child tax credit Divided views on work requirements for Medicaid recipients Majority opposition to cuts in food assistance and billions spent on migrant detention centres 60% of respondents found the expected $3 trillion rise in the national debt to be 'unacceptable' With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, Democrats are mobilising to make the legislation a central campaign issue. Plans are underway for rallies, ad campaigns, bus tours and vigils to spotlight what they call the most damaging elements of the law. With the signing of the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Trump has delivered a long-promised conservative victory that could resonate for years — or backfire at the ballot box. Its impact on American families, the healthcare system, and the national debt will be central to political debates ahead. As the fireworks faded over Washington, one thing was clear: the battle over Trump's most ambitious legislative move is only just beginning.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
The India-US trade deal is on Trump's desk. Will he sign?
The first tranche of the India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) is now awaiting US President Donald Trump's final approval, after being greenlit by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, three people directly involved in the process told Mint on the condition of anonymity. The key sticking points remain the same as reported by Mint on 11 June. 'The final stretch of India-US trade talks has centred around sensitive sectors such as dairy, agriculture, digital, genetically modified (GM) seeds and medical services, with Washington pushing for greater access while New Delhi is seeking a balanced agreement that safeguards its vital sectors," said the first of the three people cited above. With the US pause on reciprocal tariffs set to end on 9 July and the Trump administration shifting its stance from mutual tariff reduction to seeking greater market access, Indian negotiators are burning the midnight oil to secure a 'respectable deal," the person added. The Indian team extended its stay in Washington beyond the originally scheduled two-day visit that ended on 27 June, in a final effort to resolve differences, particularly over agriculture, and to conclude negotiations for an interim trade agreement. According to the second person, the US has proposed two alternative options for tariff reduction in case White House does not 'fully agree" with the terms finalized by Indian negotiators and their American counterparts. 'If India agrees to US demands for greater market access in agricultural goods, dairy and seeds, then Indian goods may face only a 10% additional tariff—which, while not ideal, is still much lower than what other countries in the Asian region are facing," said the second person. 'And in case India does not agree, it could face a 20% tariff—comprising the existing 10% baseline duty and a 10% reciprocal tariff carved out of the 16% additional duty imposed on 2 April as part of the US's Liberation Day action," the person added. In that scenario, India would still gain a 6% relief. The recently concluded in-person round of talks is seen as critical, especially since the US has already finalized trade deals with China, Vietnam and the UK. Although talks with China began after India's, they progressed more quickly and helped ease bilateral tensions. Indian negotiators are seeking the elimination of reciprocal tariffs and additional duties such as those on steel, aluminium, and auto components—along with assurances that no future tariffs will be imposed. 'Indian negotiators did their best to convince their US counterparts about the domestic sensitivities involved in these sectors. To some extent, the USTR has agreed to India's position on not fully opening up the agriculture sector. Now, it's up to the US President to take the final call," said the third person aware of the discussions. However, this person expressed confidence that the deal is on track and likely to be announced by Trump before 8 July in the US. The pact is likely to follow the US model adopted in its agreements with the UK and, more recently, with Vietnam, according to trade experts. 'Nothing would be better than the US removing the 10% baseline duty from Indian goods, but India should not open its critical sectors just to get that 10% duty removed," said Ajay Srivastava, co-founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a think tank. 'India should aggressively plan to diversify its exports to other countries and minimise its dependency on the US. There may be a knee-jerk impact in the initial stage, but in the long run, it will help build resilience and strengthen India's global trade position," he added. In its trade deal with the UK, the US did not remove the 10% baseline duty that applies to all countries. In Vietnam's case, the total tariff was lowered from 46% to 20%, including the 10% baseline duty imposed under the Trump administration's reciprocal tariff framework. The US-Vietnam deal also introduced a 40% tariff on transhipments through Vietnam, aimed at curbing Chinese goods being routed to the US using Vietnamese facilities. 'Trade agreements aim to eliminate trade barriers and to set rules that support high-standard, seamless trade that creates certainty for businesses. To that definition, none will be done with the US by 9 July. At best, there may be frameworks for future negotiations. There are too many issues to resolve with too many parties," said Steven Okun, CEO, APAC Advisors, a Singapore-based consultancy firm. As of now, tariffs on Indian exports to the US (26%) are lower compared to those on Vietnam (46%), Cambodia (49%), Bangladesh (37%) and Thailand (36%), offering India a strategic tariff advantage in sectors such as electronics, apparel, and toys. In the case of China, tariffs on Chinese goods had previously surged as high as 145%, but following a truce in Geneva, they were brought down to 30%. Under the new agreement, however, these have now been restructured into a flat 55% rate—significantly higher than the tariff levels currently applied to Indian goods. Queries sent to the Indian commerce ministry, spokespersons of the USTR, and the US Embassy in New Delhi remained unanswered till press time. In the meantime, Indian exporters have been benefiting from steeper US tariffs on Chinese goods, which gave Indian products a competitive edge. China's exports to the US plummeted 34.5% year-on-year to $28.8 billion in May from $44 billion a year earlier, according to data released by China's General Administration of Customs on 10 June. This, however, was offset by China's rising exports to members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (up 15% year-on-year to $58.4 billion in May), and the European Union (up 12% to $49.5 billion According to data released by India's commerce ministry on 16 June, India's imports from China rose 21.7% to $10.32 billion in May from $8.48 billion a year earlier, driven by higher inflows of electronic goods, machinery, chemicals, and project-related equipment. Meanwhile, India's imports from the US declined to $3.63 billion in May from $3.85 billion a year ago, while exports to the country grew 17.3% year-on-year to $8.8 billion, led by higher shipments of smartphones and electronics. According to commerce ministry data, Indian goods exports to the US in the last financial year (FY25) increased by 11.6%, from $77.52 billion in FY24 to $86.51 billion in FY25. Imports from the US also rose, but by a smaller margin of 7.42%, increasing from $42.20 billion to $45.33 billion during the fiscal year that ended on 31 March. Meanwhile, imports of goods from China rose by 11.5%, from $101.74 billion in FY24 to $113.46 billion in FY25, while exports to China decreased by 14.5%, from $16.67 billion in FY24 to $14.25 billion in FY25, the data showed.
