Slashdot Mirror
Google's Marissa Mayer Becomes Yahoo! CEO
D H NG writes "Marissa Mayer, Google's employee #20 and Vice President of Local, has been appointed CEO of Yahoo. She was Google's public face for years, famously being responsible for the look and feel of Google's most popular products: the famously unadorned white search homepage, Gmail, Google News and Google Images. Mayer resigned from Google Monday afternoon and will begin her new job on Tuesday."
Huh?
I'm confused. I guess that I didn't understand right, I thought that we users were the product, and the customers were the advertising agencies and companies that pay Google to deliver our views/time to them...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
No, you understood it right. We should be viewed as the customers not a product. Until Google realizes that, they can go suck eggs and hopefully they'll get slapped with more fines due to abusing people's privacy.
She spent her time working at a company that has a good product and a pretty solid streak of good years.
Yahoo is stuck with lots of products that nobody wants anymore and flailing to find what to cut and what to keep. Those kinds of decisions are much more difficult that riding a rocket like Google's last decade. CEOs who turn around failing companies are not pragmatic technologists or engineers, but either cutthroats or visionaries with a killer instinct.
From wikipedia:
Mayer received her B.S. in symbolic systems, graduating with honors, and M.S. in Computer Science from Stanford University. For both degrees, she specialized in artificial intelligence. In 2009, the Illinois Institute of Technology granted Mayer an honoris causa doctorate degree honoring her pathfinding work in the field of search.
I wonder if having someone with a technical clue (as opposed to a mindless MBA) will actually help yahoo, if they're beyond help at this point.
I'm curious if she had a non-compete clause in her contract, and how it will all work out if she does. Any Google employees who know the details on their typical contracts?
That is the best thing to happen to Yahoo in a long time. She's significantly more competent than the previous CEO, and has more knowledge of tech companies than the one before that. She has some serious challenges, but she could change the worst parts of culture at Yahoo (which is currently driving away top talent).
She did a couple interviews lately, if you want to know more about her.
Bio and more links here.
Um, the definition of your 'customer' is someone who gives you money. Did you remember to pay the Google bill this month? Didn't think so.
Yahoo! simply has nowhere to go. They've been out innovated in everything and their original purpose, human indexed websites, is no longer relevant to the world. Anything Yahoo! does, Google or Microsoft can do better.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
It Mayer Mayer not work out... :D
Cupcakes? I knew there'd be some cuts coming :)
Wow. "Okay boss I'm done here. Bye!"
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'd query that.
Are you paying google? If not, it's not surprising, and perfectly natural, that you should be the product.
Never assume they are doing anything for your benifit. They aren't. 'Do no evil' stopped forever when they started having shareholders to answer to.
I would kindly refer everyone here to geekfeminism.org since all those sexist comments are awful, you should be better than that.
We should be viewed as the customers not a product.
Not if they wish to make money.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
No, no, no... it's gotta be all about me! Every company exists to serve me, and me alone! If those big companies aren't pleasing me, they're wrong and evil!
</sarcasm>
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Nobody expects Yahoo to return to its glory years, but if you can right the ship and steer it to stability, consider it a success. Aim high by shooting low.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Lots of the press is focused on the fact she's a woman CEO - but more important is she's been one of Google's #1 product people since really early on. Hopefully it'll actually make Yahoo focus on product again and get away from the "audience" focus. Larry and Sergei probably not happy campers right now...!
--- Karma monkey, twitter: njyx
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Born Marissa Ann Mayer May 30, 1975 (age 37) Wausau, Wisconsin, USA Residence San Francisco, Palo Alto Nationality American Alma mater Stanford University Occupation President & CEO, Yahoo! [1] Computer programming instructor, Stanford University Employer Yahoo Stanford University Board member of San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco Ballet, New York City Ballet, and Cooper–Hewitt, National Design Museum [2] Spousehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Mayer Zachary Bogue (2009–present) [3] (from Wikipedia)
If there is no product left you are screwed. Yahoo is not Google either and is less aggressive in marketing and advertising.
What I really see is from the security scandal and many many other problems including spammers taking over, and feature rott, are all a sign of a lack of vision and people just giving a damn about their products. Their products reak, porn spammers even go into the children's chat rooms for crying out loud and spam every 1 minute! I am not talking about a one time thing, but they have been doing that for over 10 years! I quit using Yahoo right around then with chat.
Their IM program is malware ladden and slows down older computers and has people randomly friending and spamming you, again no one gives a shit at Yahoo and I use Digsby for my Yahoo client now.
They could have taken on Google in 2002 with an improved search engine. They could have taken on Skype with improved video as they did have some of it workign and calling in YahooIM 5 years ago at least. They could have got rid of all the porn spammers and made Yahoo chat a must have thing rather than letting AOL and then MSN steal this market.
In comparison Google and even Microsoft quickly fix things and are always at least trying to compete and outdo companies like Skype. No one cares and it is just a boring day job with no passion left. This new CEO needs to excite her employees and fire QA and security people and provide a vision for improvments.
Do this and we the product shall return.
http://saveie6.com/
How much do you pay for Gmail? For Google Search?
I'm guessing the advertisers give Google a lot more money than you do.
Whoa, the worst Google executive gets parachuted into Yahoo, is that some kind of strategy? A finishing move? Better cupcakes in the Yahoo cafeteria, if they even have one any more?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Oh yeah, that's totally what's needed to pull Yahoo back from the brink.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Without users Google has no "product" to sell.
There is a distinction that can be drawn between "customer" and "consumer." The average Joe might not be Google's primary "customer" but he is their primary "consumer" ... and without consumers Google is out of business.
It's a total logical fallacy to assume that Google doesn't need to treat their consumers right, and only needs to pander to the people who buy their advertising services. Their advertising services are worth nothing without the consumers, and that makes "us" important (no, essential) to Google's bottom line.
An Original Sarlacc, or a Special Edition Sarlacc?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yep, seems like Google is really starting to drive away its loyal employees like rats from a ship. I guess that's what happens when you start doing evil and putting your advertisers above what should be your actual customers not the product you sell.
I thought that was Yahoo's specialty. I stopped using Yahoo years ago due to the glut of advertising in everything to the point I felt Yahoo was becoming unusable.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Her husband probably won't allow it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yahoo! simply has nowhere to go. They've been out innovated in everything and their original purpose, human indexed websites, is no longer relevant to the world. Anything Yahoo! does, Google or Microsoft can do better.
The question is .. do they still have enough money and desire to innovate? They could yet dig themselves out of the hole, but it requires getting the company to be a great place to work, attracting brilliant, energetic minds to create. If all Yahoo are is a company of cowering cubicle moles, trying not to be noticed and whacked, there's not much she or anyone can do.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Their IM program is malware ladden and slows down older computers and has people randomly friending and spamming you, again no one gives a shit at Yahoo and I use Digsby for my Yahoo client now.
It's sad, Yahoo Messenger used to be their best product (and their mail was pretty solid, too). I understand they are free, and would be fine with a few ads. But as you said both of them are now completely stuffed with (totally irrelevant at best, borderline sleazy/offensive/phishing/scam at worst) ads. And UI-wise their mail client is now approaching unusable.
I *wanted* to stick with Yahoo, but it was like they were actively trying to drive me away. I'm almost surprised they have not yet figured out which genres of music I hate most and automatically play them in the background when I log in...
or maybe it isn't so simple. correct me if I am wrong, BUT
if you don't click the ads on their sites they don't get a chunk of change from the advertisers. In turn the advertisers don't get paid because we are not clicking on ads and buying the stuff which means they will pull their ads because they are not successful. SOOOO, IF we stop clicking on the ads and buying the stuff, these companies will start to lose money and realize that we are not the product....right? or something like that?
"That's right...I said it."
Compared to the clowns that have run Yahoo to date, Marissa Mayer is a breath of fresh air. Yahoo needs a strategic person on top. Yahoo ran in front of the crowd with many features that were not monetized. Best financial section in the early days but they hid the link on the home page, moved it around and almost seemed embarrassed about it. In late 1990's every VC I knew went to Yahoo fist for news. They had an outstanding online merchant system again late 1990's that anyone could use to set up web sales. They even took care of setting the credit card merchant account details. I was blown away on how many early online sales were powered by their system. They even had phone support, all for less than $20/month. They were more that five years ahead of Amazon. If they could of put all those companies under their banner as Amazon now does that one feature alone could have made the company. If Ms. Mayer can focus on one to two areas, get good people to help her execute, Yahoo could come back. There are still many smart technical people at Yahoo. I wish her the best of luck. With Alta Vista (DEC) and Excite ancient history, it would be nice to have Yahoo along with Apple as two early pioneers still around.
The ads are not the worst more than randomly people Iming you with hey look at my titties at www.horneyforflies.com. They try to friend you once an hour from compromised accounts.
Seriously this is negligent as kids use IM programs. No one cares and you can now forget about me using it at work. I would be fired fast. They have no one doing any checking other than yep we have an IM client, lets go work on Yahoo360 instead and let it rot. Very similar to SCO, Bordland, and a whole bunch of other companies.
Google would stop you so damn fast if you tried a scam with Google's voice and found a weakness. The Andriod Yahoo mail vulnerability is another one. Yahoo just shrugs their shoulders.
Is this a company I want to do business with? Hell no. I do banking on my computer
http://saveie6.com/
"Marissa" was my Yahoo! password. Now you've gone and leaked it!
Have gnu, will travel.
Two possible outcomes:
1. As soon as she turns the ship around and brings Yahoo! above water, Google sues or acquires them as settlement for using her knowledge of Google's trade secrets.
2. Yahoo! continues to circle the drain and she rides to the bottom, bravely staying with the ship and is barely able to console herself with the Yahoo trademarked Obscenely Huge Golden Parachute of Doom.
After the reorganization once Larry took over and Marissa was left with Google Local I think the writing was on the wall and she was just looking for the right opportunity .
In that case, I'll get my Boba Fett costume and make it a party.
I remember when Yahoo first came out. Best search engine, best free email, best chat client, best portal. Then they stagnated. Google and Microsoft swoop in and all of a sudden Yahoo is an afterthought. I've still got a yahoo email account but hardly ever use it. When I did I got much more spam that real mail. Since I switched to gmail I get hardly any spam. With either Bing or Google the search results are better. What happened to Yahoo? Totally left in the dust. Meyer hasn't got a chance to save them and she knows it. It will be a stepping stone to a CEO job at another firm. Meanwhile the Yahoo shareholders take it in the shorts again. Sigh.....
I've worked for female bosses who were randomized across the ugly--beautiful and incompetent--competent scales. I want my boss to be competent. She's my boss, not a potential wife or fuck-mate.
I've worked with Marissa before and admire her product focus and attention to detail. She's very sharp. The challenge for her will be working in an environment without the depth of engineering talent that Google has; she has never experienced this in her working life.
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
Just because the social contract isn't written down does not mean it doesn't exist. Many people appear to have forgotten this. Not only are many big companies not serving the public well, they are marginalizing and robbing their own shareholders through huge executive compensation packages, and poor planning that spends their good reputations, their accumulated resources, and their very futures to boost immediate profits and executive bonuses. What kind of idiotic thinking leads to decisions to waste money on huge disinformation campaigns, as Big Oil did when trying to deny Climate Change, and Big Tobacco did when trying to claim nicotine was not addictive? There isn't a single big bank or telecoms company that has a good reputation. The biggest of the entertainment industry have thoroughly dirtied themselves by waging a highhanded, mean spirited, sanctimonious, bullying terror campaign against the entire world, calling us all evil thieving pirates. Many of these executives are parasites, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs, not leaders.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Yahoo is the real sinking ship. She'll be out of a job when they go belly up in 5 years.
I frankly don't get why do people claim that Google is now turning evil.
Googe was founded in '98. In 2003, just five years after, and almost a decade from now, they created AdSense and started tracking people using cookies. And now they're suddenly evil? It makes no sense.
On the other hand, they're still doing good stuff - paying Mozilla, offering FOSS tools (and keeping private forks closed, but again, they always did), campaigning against SOPA, etc.
I'm not claiming they are or not evil - I frankly find that irrelevant. But they haven't really changed, so I don't see how can people claim they turned evil. Either they aren't or they've been for many years now.
Dilbert RSS feed
I think we are cabbage
Oh yeah. That's why Google completely pulled out of China over censorship and spying on their users, sending political activists and just normal people talking about forbidden subjects to work camps. Bing and Yahoo were quick to fill evil gap for them.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Beyond money and desire- do they have the talent? Startups actually put ads on public transportation and billboards out here trying to recruit developers. In a market where the chances of making it rich at a startup are actually fairly high, it's hard for Yahoo to capture or retain talent in the face of Google, Facebook, or one of the thousands of startups.
They'll definitely miss her distinctive laugh around the hallways I'm sure.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This woman is brilliant. Maybe she'll find a way. Certainly she won't have any trouble getting the press to show up for her events. Pretty CEO = Lots of clicks, therefore ad views, therefore lots of coverage. So whatever they do she won't have a hard time letting people know about it. She should exploit that as much as possible. Slashdot may as well add an icon of her mug right now.
She should also go over the top with the Community partnership, green energy, great Place to work, human interest type articles. Maybe fly a few columnists out at a time, all the time to bring Yahoo home to the local communities they serve all over the world - have an office dedicated to that. Build the community love.
Sales and process types wind up at the top of corporations after a while, and Yahoo's got more than a few of those. It probably won't take her long to find out which ones are stuffed shirts with empty hats. That part is easy. Finding the right people to sit in those chairs is hard.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If all Yahoo are is a company of cowering cubicle moles, trying not to be noticed and whacked, there's not much she or anyone can do.
I don't know about that. It seems to be working pretty well for IBM.
Google is competing against Apple and Microsoft. These three all have a lot of fans - as in "fanatics". A fanatic is having a reality break. They will go willfully blind to overlook any flaw in the object of their fantasy, and amplify the slightest perceived flaw to high crimes and misdemeanors for no other reason than they want to promote the thing they like and prevent the other thing. Some of these fans work for these companies and are just putting their honest opinions. And then there's the profit motive, and Waggener-Edstrom. All thee have fiends as well who would come in here and bash them for subsidizing elder care or building a solar power plant or some other inescapably wonderful thing.
In life there are no perfect choices. You can't swing around a $100B company and not crush some daisies. People don't post comments to just say "meh" so comment sections naturally pit the fans against the fiends and generate ad clicks off the conflict in a diabolical scheme to get us, the commenters to generate the content that draws the viewers that see the ads that pay the rent for the employees. All three of these companies have fanatics and fiends, good points and bad.
Except Microsoft of course. We know about them. ;-)
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Let me give your analogy everything and say unequivocally "YES we're 'lettuce'" ... it does not invalidate my point.
Can the grocery store benefit by selling rotten lettuce ? Can it benefit by stocking less of it despite their "customers" demanding more ? And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?
Honestly who cares if we're the product ? Why is that a bad thing ? When we sell our services to an employer we're "the product" (to the same extent that we're "the product" to advertisers. Obviously we're not talking about trading or selling us as human beings in a literal sense). The point is, we choose to use Google for a reason. If they remove that reason or start slacking then we'll be itching for an alternative and a new market opportunity opens up to compete with them. For what it's worth I've already heard of some people who have stopped using Google search, going directly to Wikipedia instead. It might not be a great example but it is an example of choosing "not Google." In fine dining the Filet Mingon might be the product but you better bet your sweet ass the Chef holds that cut of beef on an insanely high pedestal and treats it with ridiculous amounts of respect because doing so is crucial to the restaurant's bottom line.
First-name basis with "Marissa", you are?
maybe a good time to short yahoo stock?
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
That particular decision is also the reason it's so hard to revoke a corporate charter in California (the corporate equivalent of a death penalty on the "person").
She was employee #20 at Google. Her estimated wealth is $300 million. I don't think she needs a parachute. She wants a shot at top dog, and that was the one thing Google couldn't give her.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
By what law or logic is this? Last I knew, a "company" was simply a group of people who have pooled their resources to accomplish a common goal. That goal could be "cure cancer", "promote world peace", or simply (and commonly) "make money", but there's no mandate I've ever encountered that they must serve the public.
In fact, I can think of many companies that explicitly do not serve the public, or do so only indirectly. Holding companies, for example, exist to just own other companies. Defense companies will often only serve governments, which may or may not serve the public interest. Foreign financial companies are often merely vehicles for relocating money for tax purposes.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
At least she'll have a clue about what to do about these Big Data technologies that Yahoo had an important role in developing, unlike her predecessor(s). After all she comes from Google which started it all with MapReduce.
Ya HOOO....
Yeah, looks like she was pretty hot like 10, 15 years ago.
Just like Yahoo.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide. "
Companies exist to make profit. Public service is a cost center.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"I bet ALL of the female bosses you've ever had, have had faces like a welder's bench"
Full of square holes and Acorn clamps? Yuck.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
No one cares and it is just a boring day job with no passion left. This new CEO needs to excite her employees and fire QA and security people and provide a vision for improvments.
I remember a similar company, popular for a while a few years back, that given their name, you would of thought were born to execute on such a strategy.
This UID is 7651 digits too high to subjectively infer IQ from.
Just because the social contract isn't written down does not mean it doesn't exist.
I have a contract that says you will mail me US $325.00 on the first and third Fridays of each month, except during leap years, and years following each football season when the Dallas Cowboys make it to the playoffs. During said years the amount due is $675.50, which must be delivered via FedEx Priority Overnight in bills of $50 or lower denomination.
Like your "social contract," this one isn't written down, either, but...
You may very well be the person the GP was attempting to parody. "Companies exist to serve me. And you too, of course. But if they don't do what I think is good, they are bad."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Eh, I was young, they came out when I was in high school. It was the first time my generation got to see Star Wars on the silver screen, and they touted it as fixing things to the way they would have done them had they had those resources in the beginning, as well as cleaning up some of the obvious bad edits.
All of the crap though, like the animals that prey on each other, the added singer thing, the miniature Jabba being walked on by Solo, that sort of thing, I didn't see a reason for.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There are browser extensions that disable communication with Google's servers. That's what I use. I also have similar extensions to block Facebook.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
A nice utopia you live in indeed. In the real world I live in, companies exist to serve the interests of shareholders. If they happen to have a moral spine then great, but it is no requirement.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I don't understand- if they're smart then they will treat us like product- high quality, specialized product that is well chosen for its particular customer.
I don't find *most* of Google's ads on their own services to be that annoying. They come in the form of text, mostly, and are significantly more relevant to me than ads from other services. I don't like ads, but if I'm going to "pay" for the free services by putting up with ads, I'd rather they be appropriate than for crap that really annoys me.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Here's another pathetic example. Yahoo was the inventor of the DKIM system for cryptographically signing email in 2004. It's a valuable tool for fighting spam. When you get spam from a yahoo or gmail address, you can tell whether or not the return address is forged. If it's not forged, you can complain using a web interface. But within the last year or so, yahoo eliminated that interface, so they're no longer getting the full benefit of the DKIM system that they themselves invented. Here is the URL where the form used to be; it now redirects to a useless help page.
Find free books.
I believe the terminology everybody is looking for is "audience". Less formally, eyeballs. And a web portal is only worth as much as its eyeballs.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yahoo is the real sinking ship. She'll be out of a job when they go belly up in 5 years.
That will be in another three CEOs from now.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Its a long time Yahoo brought about some great product. Its high time they move on from a purely website to creating some products. Probably this might bring about this change.
The most clear cut example of evil I've seen from Google so far? Compare Bing's search on Googirl: googirl
To Google's results: googirl
Doctored or what? Admittedly, not really really evil. But Google does swear up and down they don't do this. Perhaps... only when they feel like it?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Is that Cole's Law?
Without users Google has no "product" to sell.
The users are vendors, who deliver the eyes Google is selling, there are PLENTY of them, and they demand very little overall.
Same logic by which governments exist. There have been many governments that have failed horribly at this, and seriously deluded themselves, thinking their purpose is to treat their inner circle to the good life on the backs of the 99%. Today, it is Syria. In the Middle Ages, it was the monarchies that became increasingly out of touch. Thought they were too good for the common people. Wise monarchs understood that majesty was just propaganda, their power was not absolute, they weren't really godlike beings and that peasants existed for more than serving the royal will, were more than cannon (or arrow) fodder, more than a nuisance that required frequent warring to check their numbers. When a monarch ascended who actually believed the propaganda, the result was usually disaster. Between the American Revolution, which showed the world we didn't have to live with bad monarchs, and WWI in which the last of the major ruling European monarchies self destructed and took their states with them, the entire system collapsed.
Today, we're much too apologetic over the antisocial behavior of our governments/corporations. "With great power comes great responsibility." Do you recall Tony Hayward's stunningly selfish, arrogant, and clumsy statement after the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico? "I'd like my life back." BP's acts affected the lives of millions. When the stakes are that high, they cannot behave as if their actions have no consequences. Through reckless disregard of safety and sanity, they ruined the fishing and tourism industries of the Gulf for years. It doesn't get much more irresponsible than that. Sadly, Hayward was not an exception. Lot of people have bought into the idea that corporations' first duties are to profits and shareholders, and the public interest be damned. They really believe that corporations are only doing what they are supposed to do. That attitude is fine when corporations are numerous, small, and not too powerful, and healthy competition and law enforcement keeps their worst impulses in check. But there are too many cozy oligopolies these days. Too much concentration of power. Lately, even shareholders don't count for much. We excuse rent seeking, tax evasion, externalizing of costs, media manipulation and coercion, regulatory capture, bribery, and even lawbreaking. We despair of enforcing laws, most recently against the wave of fraud that has engulfed Wall Street. It's amazing how many people still gas up at BP stations, still bank at the likes of Bank of America even after the mess they made with subprime mortgages, and if that doesn't make an impression, jerking them around personally with poor service, ridiculous fees, and gotchas in the fine print.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
On the other hand, they're still doing good stuff - paying Mozilla[...]
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
"And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?"
Erm, I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, that's pretty much how it works.
You're really hoping she goes for balding overweight IT professionals with posters of Slave Leia in their room, huh.
OMG you know everything about me!....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
This could be an interesting choice for many reasons.....if she succeeds with Yahoo.
Many women can't get some jobs because companies are concerned about them getting pregnant and not being there for them. She is due in October. If she pulls off turning Yahoo around she could make a contribution toward ending that kind of discrimination.
She could also help end the stereotype that a cute, blonde, conventionally attractive woman isn't likely to be an effective CEO.
If she succeeds, if not she will fuel to the fire of stereotypes.
I hope she succeeds. Yahoo used to be "the Google" back in the day. Now they seem to be stuck in mediocrity. It would be nice if she could bring some of that Google magic to Yahoo.
I pay them in eyeballs.
Nah. Yahoo Fantasy Football is one of the best out there, and it's free. Oh wait, this is slashdot? I mean, Yahoo has a good WoW AH tracker...
Sir, let me google that for you... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dogpile.com
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
By what law or logic is this?
Because the people are sovereign. Companies can only exist because the public wills it. If companies are to justly exist, they can only exist to serve the public. If a company exists that does not serve the public interest, either the people will remove it, or the people have been oppressed to the point where they can't.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So freedom to associate is subject to the whims of someone calling themselves the public? Or are we to hold daily votes to close down any company that a majority of people don't like? If we can effectively execute a company, should the same justice be applied to people that the majority of the public just doesn't like?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
So freedom to associate is subject to the whims of someone calling themselves the public?
You can associate however you want. That doesn't mean the government has to let you incorporate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Prohibiting incorporation doesn't have any bearing on how ethically a company behaves. Incorporation is mostly legally useful for limiting liability, so that if one person in a company screws up the whole venture, the others aren't personally liable for the company's failure.
As long as the company is still able to pay its bills, an unincorporated company is just an association of people, free to be as evil as they want.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
an unincorporated company is just an association of people
Right, not really a company at all.
free to be as evil as they want.
Within the law, which again (ostensibly)exists to serve the public.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not really a company except in the ways that it is:
In the United States, a company may be a "corporation, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, fund, or organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not, and (in an official capacity) any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, or similar official, or liquidating agent, for any of the foregoing." In the US, a company is not necessarily a corporation.
Of course, companies (and corporations) can be as evil as they want within the law, which is no different that today's model, where the law defines standards of behavior that regularly lag behind modern opinions, and are more influenced by media and panic than actual concern for the public good.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Fair enough. In so far as companies exist in isolation, without any official recognition or facilitation by the public, they simply exist. Any official recognition or facilitiation however is rightly done only by the public to serve the public good.
If you want to be evil in private, go ahead. Don't ask me to limit your liability. Don't ask me to offer you tax breaks. Don't ask me for any special treatment at all. That is reserved for the groups that are operating in the public interest.
Or rather, it would be in a just society where the people had a say.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And quite frankly, I doubt she will fix yahoo!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bloated? Hardly. Its memory usage has been dropping consistently on stable versions: https://areweslimyet.com/
Dilbert RSS feed
Can't believe I'm defending the special edition, but the "miniature Jabba being walked on by Solo" was originally intended.. of course the used some of the original footage + new special effects.
(Now, the Trek like 'ring' when the planet explodes, plus a ton of other changes, are annoying..)
I know this was a joke, but personally I can't stand Yahoo FF. ESPN's is far superior IMHO.
...And what committee or group will hold this vast power of deciding whether a company is serving the public or not? The easily-corrupted government? The easily-swayed uneducated public?The elite educated few?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Nope, not joking. I vaguely remember using ESPN one season but it didn't have something crucial to us (like a flex player, or roster size limit, or waiver wire rules, or something) that we all universally hated (probably fixed by now, and I don't even remember what it was).
I'll probably give both a try this year and see.