that happens. also people die on surgeon's table. shit indeed does happen.
but you're missing the point. you can't _get_ a rock star CEO in today's market if you do not offer the parachute..
you and i can get all pissy about that but unless you want to put shackles on the candidate he/she simply won't work for you under different conditions.
same as Jolie or Pitt or Hanks won't work on a movie unless you cut them a sizable check regardless of how the movie does.
you have a problem with that? move to North Korea. pretty much everywhere else people figured out that worrying about CEO's paycheck is barking at the wrong tree.
would you have ovechkin only get paid if his team wins the stanley cup?
i get your frustration but it simply not how this world works.
if a company wants a competent CEO they have to negotiate compensation on an open market. if the board agrees to a golden parachute well.. that means it was the only way to get this particular CEO.
not happy with the deal? pass. see how your company does with someone who agrees to work on contingency.
in any event, the outrage about "fat CEOs" is completely misplaced. CEO compensation is by far not the problem with today's businesses. corporatism is. which, btw, largely about lobbying and other government level corruption.
luckily in this (usa) country its "baby-corruption" compared to what happens in some other countries including the one discussed in TFA.
> If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life
if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.
ultimately you have to look at it from a different perspective.
a CEO job isn't an entitlement. much like a surgeon. someone would have to walk a long hard and at times perilous career path. relatively few make it to the top of the piramid.
which makes for a limited pool of quality CEOs. supply-demand. simple as that.
market won't shell out money for no good reason. market does its job as long as its free. and,
btw, the opposite is very much true as well, the only way to check/balance prices (including labor) is free market.
Legendary scientist David Deutsch puts theoretical physics on the back burner to discuss a more urgent matter: the survival of our species. The first step toward solving global warming, he says, is to admit that we have a problem.
you could _attempt_ to sue me. you'd have to find a judge who'd agree to take the case. possible? sure. likely? don't think so. not only that, there are laws against frivolous litigation.
that said, the problem is, suit at question isn't considered frivolous.
however, i'd like to take issue with the qualification "lazy and incompetent". companies do what the market demands of them. examples of companies that create markets are very rare.
in the world we live in, succeeds the company which sells the most not the company that makes the best.
being the first to market is a major factor of selling the most. and that is _our_ doing. its _us_ who have selected (thank you Darwin!) companies to rush to market plug and play crap.
risk is nothing unusual in the business. all GT would have had to do was either:
- pad the contract enough to account for the risk (they may have, i've not read the contract)
OR
- say "no" to the amendment.
worst case scenario they would have lost a (granted, large) customer. instead they went bankrupt.
the fundamentals _were_ good. namely one side clearly wanted sapphire and had plenty of cash. the other side knew how to make it and had the expertise.
only goes to show that fundamentals alone are not enough to guarantee success.. quite frankly thats why not every geek (yours truly included) can grow a successful business.
last point i'll make is, i wouldn't draw long term conclusions out of this snafu. business deals fall through. shit happens. hopefully both sides learned something.
Apple intimidated a smaller company into an unworkable deal.
The smaller company that supposed to be an expert in the field agreed to sign an unworkable deal.
Both failed to amend the deal in time to fix the debacle. Businesses amend deals all the time. Provided the fundamentals were good, all they had to do was communicate timely.
not enough to declare "invalid" but it *is* absolutely a reason to ratchet up scrutiny if motivation is tainted by self interest of the people pushing this law.
and, its not about "validity" of the cause, (who in their right mind would say that drug abuse is good?!) its about effectiveness of the policy to achieve the ends its setting out to achieve. i don't see any less suffering caused by drugs after decades of the "war on drugs". any success has been achieved by decriminalization, education, and advancing the science of addictive behavior.
same goes for the "right to forget". we, as society, must learn to cope with bullshit about each other that exists on the net. censorship isn't the solution, education is.
meantime some fat cronies playing up fear card to reach deeper into their constituent's pockets.. pure and simple.
setting aside that your statement is certainly debatable (there is a difference between use and abuse) you've entirely missed my point.
my point being, fighting straw man wars is a reliable method for financing comfortable lifestyle to a whole class of individuals in the politics theater.
war on drugs is one. right to be forgotten is another. i'm sure you can name few others.
Slashdot Mirror
indeed https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s...
this isn't a solution against advertising, its a solution to forced flash which is a common attack vector for malware.
kudos google.
..floats your boat, go for it. people spend stupider money on "fun".
absent that type of reason, don't bother rationalizing, there's no rational point in buying lottery what-so-ever.
> Being a free market doesn't mean things work optimally
it is, vs the alternatives.
> spectacular success like Steve Jobs
actually Steve Jobs was fired from apple when the board perceived him to be a poor CEO
the point of that LAT article is that because IBM is too big to fail we should care. okay. lets care.
what do you propose we do about hiring the next IBM CEO? what if the CEO you want to hire won't agree to come work for you without the parachute?
that happens. also people die on surgeon's table. shit indeed does happen.
but you're missing the point. you can't _get_ a rock star CEO in today's market if you do not offer the parachute..
you and i can get all pissy about that but unless you want to put shackles on the candidate he/she simply won't work for you under different conditions.
same as Jolie or Pitt or Hanks won't work on a movie unless you cut them a sizable check regardless of how the movie does.
you have a problem with that? move to North Korea. pretty much everywhere else people figured out that worrying about CEO's paycheck is barking at the wrong tree.
would you have ovechkin only get paid if his team wins the stanley cup?
i get your frustration but it simply not how this world works.
if a company wants a competent CEO they have to negotiate compensation on an open market. if the board agrees to a golden parachute well.. that means it was the only way to get this particular CEO.
not happy with the deal? pass. see how your company does with someone who agrees to work on contingency.
in any event, the outrage about "fat CEOs" is completely misplaced. CEO compensation is by far not the problem with today's businesses. corporatism is. which, btw, largely about lobbying and other government level corruption.
luckily in this (usa) country its "baby-corruption" compared to what happens in some other countries including the one discussed in TFA.
> If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life
if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.
ultimately you have to look at it from a different perspective.
a CEO job isn't an entitlement. much like a surgeon. someone would have to walk a long hard and at times perilous career path. relatively few make it to the top of the piramid.
which makes for a limited pool of quality CEOs. supply-demand. simple as that.
market won't shell out money for no good reason. market does its job as long as its free. and,
btw, the opposite is very much true as well, the only way to check/balance prices (including labor) is free market.
thats not what this ted talk is about at all, actually. watch it, you might be surprised
...not just problem avoidance" — David Deutsch
you could _attempt_ to sue me. you'd have to find a judge who'd agree to take the case. possible? sure. likely? don't think so. not only that, there are laws against frivolous litigation.
that said, the problem is, suit at question isn't considered frivolous.
and thats the thing they're getting sued over.. ..there's something seriously wrong with our legal system..
(eom)
unfortunately i'm not speaking from experience, just spitballing ideas.
best of luck to you!
it makes me feel very very impressed.
why bother flying spacecraft when you can fart your way into world fame?
oh, and, of course, be sure to poop on everyone who can't fart quite as eloquently as your impassive self :-)
i'll bet you can fart "happy birthday" which is even more impressive..
"so what"??
"stupid canon shell"??
sheesh..
first off, i agree with you in principle.
however, i'd like to take issue with the qualification "lazy and incompetent". companies do what the market demands of them. examples of companies that create markets are very rare.
in the world we live in, succeeds the company which sells the most not the company that makes the best.
being the first to market is a major factor of selling the most. and that is _our_ doing. its _us_ who have selected (thank you Darwin!) companies to rush to market plug and play crap.
risk is nothing unusual in the business. all GT would have had to do was either:
- pad the contract enough to account for the risk (they may have, i've not read the contract)
OR
- say "no" to the amendment.
worst case scenario they would have lost a (granted, large) customer. instead they went bankrupt.
the fundamentals _were_ good. namely one side clearly wanted sapphire and had plenty of cash. the other side knew how to make it and had the expertise.
only goes to show that fundamentals alone are not enough to guarantee success.. quite frankly thats why not every geek (yours truly included) can grow a successful business.
last point i'll make is, i wouldn't draw long term conclusions out of this snafu. business deals fall through. shit happens. hopefully both sides learned something.
it was never about "need".
nothing wrong with good old fashion greed..
Apple intimidated a smaller company into an unworkable deal.
The smaller company that supposed to be an expert in the field agreed to sign an unworkable deal.
Both failed to amend the deal in time to fix the debacle. Businesses amend deals all the time. Provided the fundamentals were good, all they had to do was communicate timely.
not enough to declare "invalid" but it *is* absolutely a reason to ratchet up scrutiny if motivation is tainted by self interest of the people pushing this law.
and, its not about "validity" of the cause, (who in their right mind would say that drug abuse is good?!) its about effectiveness of the policy to achieve the ends its setting out to achieve. i don't see any less suffering caused by drugs after decades of the "war on drugs". any success has been achieved by decriminalization, education, and advancing the science of addictive behavior.
same goes for the "right to forget". we, as society, must learn to cope with bullshit about each other that exists on the net. censorship isn't the solution, education is.
meantime some fat cronies playing up fear card to reach deeper into their constituent's pockets.. pure and simple.
setting aside that your statement is certainly debatable (there is a difference between use and abuse) you've entirely missed my point.
my point being, fighting straw man wars is a reliable method for financing comfortable lifestyle to a whole class of individuals in the politics theater.
war on drugs is one. right to be forgotten is another. i'm sure you can name few others.
we have plenty of laws on the books to fight the root cause, which is the monopoly control of resources and markets.
everything else in time will take care of itself.
no better than "war on drugs" or any other method of milking the tax payer..