He has opinions on how the company should be managed, what the product should be, and how to interact with the community... but he abdicated all the responsibility, didn't provide leadership, and is now complaining it didn't turn out how he wanted it. This is personality problem and business books won't help.
And ironically, after going on and on about all the details of those failures, he asks the reader for a job. Does he really think that this overly long text is a good ad for getting people to hire him?
As a potential employer, I already see in front of me the public ranting about what is wrong with my organisation if (or when) he eventually leaves again. Dodged a bullet right there.
He abdicated the responsibility as he from the beginning didn't have any power (always the single dissenting vote). There also isn't much leadership to provide if everyone else in the "leadership circle" is on a different frequency, or otherwise you are just a rogue actor that will quickly get kicked out.
If anything the time for him to leave would have been when he stepped down to be an engineer. I don't think there is anything wrong with laying your reasons for leaving bare, especially when many people will come asking why one of the co-founders left.
Sometimes it makes sense, if you fundamentally disagree with leadership (or peers who outvote you), it makes sense to just move on. Otherwise they just annoy you and you them. If you've made your case, both parties will be happier apart.
I stepped out of a non-profit board for a time because what was obvious to me needed to happen wasn't going to--although it did over time after my departure and I rejoined at some point.
> He has opinions on how the company should be managed, what the product should be, and how to interact with the community... but he abdicated all the responsibility, didn't provide leadership, and is now complaining it didn't turn out how he wanted it. This is personality problem and business books won't help.
This isn't a personality problem; it's far far worse (or better, depending on your point of view) than that:
FTFA
> We hired two new staff to work on it, and did our best to reconcile what little guidance we got from Leadership with an internal process focused on discussion and consent. By late 2024, the app wasn’t what anyone wanted it to be,
Yup, no surprises there.
> Toward the end of our time at CAS we experimented with sociocracy as a way to organize without hierarchy and coercion,
> how much to disclose in our negotiations with CAS (IMO everything) or whether board members should be required to donate money (IMO no, plutocracy is bad at all times and at all levels)
> I tried to do what seemed like the only thing I could do in a hierarchy
> Accepting a grant without any consultation with staff about how its obligations might be met
...
> Since the exodus, Leadership has improved on some fronts [...] They hired three new engineers for the mobile team that seem both experienced and enthusiastic.
Well, a large grant will let you do that :-/
It seems to me that the problem was not one of personality, but of ideology.
Personality is deeply embedded in humans, ideology is merely adopted.
Author's ideology differed from that of leadership. His personality is probably irrelevant.
Seriously? What hedge contract you going to use for: 1) Wars, 2) a revocation of trucker drivers’ licenses (already happening in Cali), 3)deportations, 4)tariffs, 5) the collapse of USMCA
War-risk insurance is a thing [1]. You could probably buy a business-interruption policy with a line item for revocations. Adding a tariff contingency to customer contracts and/or engaging with vendors on a fixed-price tariff-notwithstanding basis transfers tariff risk.
Deportatios and the collapse of a free-trade zone are not mitigatable. De-leveraging from products that don't have a strong domestic alternative would be the only options there.
All costs. None easy. But all doable. (Not saying it's good business.)
Right, and then you lose the contract to someone who decided, rather than pricing in the risks, to have their hedge be "Idk guess I'll go bankrupt lmao" and bid as usual.
Unpopular opinion, but I don't care what a CEO makes. It feels like jealousy and envy driving people to care what other people make. An analogy is going onto social media and trying to compare myself to them.
I do want to be paid fairly for my work so the transparency of same job is useful, but a CEO is so far removed from me. I don't compare myself to a major league baseball player either.
Can someone enlighten me to why I should be outraged at this "inequality"?
Wealth, at the top end of the scale, is not money, it is power.
Between two people who make 100K vs 1M a year, there is a lot of difference in purchasing power, but there is basically little-to-none difference in power. They're still working class people, neither of them can buy favorable laws or supreme court judgments.
But when you concentrate most wealth into a few people, those people have inordinate power to influence government, legislation, laws and courts. They get whatever they want, which of course is even more concentration of power in their hands.
You can't have a functional democracy when a handful of people are far more equal than most of the population.
> Relatives of the President / Prime Minister also have influence on the government.
Not necessarily, in a properly working system it wouldn't happen. When it does happen, it's a sign that the elected official isn't up to par, which in turn, is a sign that the pool of candidates wasn't either. And guess who exerts the most influence on selecting the candidates and electing the leaders - it's not their relatives.
Follow the money, first and foremost - any deviation from that leads to errors and waste of time.
Because nobody votes for billionaires. They don't have to follow ethics standards like elected officials do. They are free to make decisions that selectively benefit their family or friends (as long as they don't screw over their own shareholders).
A practical concern is that capitalism (at its most ideal) is a mechanism to signal what people want/need, and as more capital accrues to fewer and fewer people, they become the only people whose wants/needs are important for the market to satisfy, which then breaks the central desirable trait of capitalism.
We should want enough variation in incomes to produce incentive for outsized value creation, but not so much that the market has relatively zero incentive to meet the needs of anyone who's not in the 1%.
A CEO is probably more relatable to the guy who cleans his office than the guy who owns the company.
£4.4m/yr PAYE will grow your wealth per year the same as much as having £30m in a reinvesting fund.
If you had £30m you'd be well off, but it's not exactly earth shattering. You get people who can pull £30m a day our of their funds and still see them grow exponentially.
If you paid a CEO £500k instead of £20m and divided the rest amongst the average number of employees amongst the FTSE100 which is 44,000, then each of those workers could enjoy a £38 pay rise monthly pre-tax.
>What’s their ROI multiplier?
Without the CEO, the company would not exist, not function or certainly not be as large as it is. So their contribution to the company provides for 44,000 people directly, and probably another 250,000 or more indirectly through family, downstream economic impacts etc.
It's pretty clear to say that, say, a shelf-stocker at Tesco, while improving revenue at a single location by perhaps tens of thousands of dollars, doesn't even come close to providing that level of economic opportunity. If that same person was removed from their position and not replaced, the impact to that store, to Tesco and to the community, would be less than negligible. It would not even be possible to be measure.
That doesn't mean it isn't noble to be shelf-stocker, a janitor, or even a software engineer. It is. But that doesn't mean you get to pretend you're feeding 294,000 people.
> If you paid a CEO £500k instead of £20m and divided the rest amongst the average number of employees amongst the FTSE100 which is 44,000, then each of those workers could enjoy a £38 pay rise monthly pre-tax.
What if you cut the entire C-suite's salaries? And maybe their reports' salaries too?
> Without the CEO, the company would not exist, not function or certainly not be as large as it is
You mean the founder. Otherwise the company existed before the CEO came along. And if it didn't employ that CEO it would employ some other CEO.
Do you have any hobbies or interests outside of school? If you're passionate about something, you'll be more interesting to people. It'll give you personality. Even if they don't have the same interest, they will ask you about it. And obviously, you'll also meet people who have the same interests.
I'll give you an extreme example: there was a Claude AI chatbot that was obsessed with the Golden Gate Bridge. This bot (a computer... a machine) had personality and was considered quirky, funny, endearing, and people loved it.
I like programming, electronics, reading, maths and am getting a bike this week so I can spend more time outside! I love talking about these things with other people, and from what I can gather from their body language and facial expressions they also enjoy hearing what I have to say about my interest. But I also enjoy letting them talk about what they like to do so I can get to know them!
Maybe also try hiking as more people are into it, plus more opportunity to chat compared to biking. Look for hiking groups in your college. There will be bikers in that group too.
Also, any activity where you see the same people on a regular basis so they get to know you is great.
I think you're misunderstanding what he is saying. I believe he is saying other people have projected their hangups ("top down enforcement in new social norms") which has caused casual nudity cease to function.
And you're saying in Europe people haven't projected sexuality onto nudity, therefore it still works. So you guys are saying the same thing.
> As soon as there are homosexuals or people who want to be perceived as the opposite gender involved, the social contract which made casual nudity work ceased to function.
> I would not want to be nude in a changing room with homosexual men or women.
It’s funny: unless they very rarely go to a public changing room, they likely have disrobed in front of a non-straight person. Likely several times, and presumably without incident. The baseline prevalence of queerness in the world is simply not that low.
I think it's pretty easy to argue it would have been overreach by a regulatory body to block the deal.
It's difficult to guess, with reasonable certainty, if the deal will kill all competition. Difficult given the competition that is out there on all fronts (Steam, Playstation, Nintendo, Epic).
So if it's not totally clear the deal is bad, it's overreach to block it. Layoffs and increased pricing isn't indicative of monopoly power. Lina's mandate wasn't to prevent layoffs, it's anti-trust. It's also too early to conclude anything from the deal that was closed so recently.
In addition to possibly being a scammer, some people found my resume to be less believable without a linkedin profile. One interviewer thought I was lying about my previous job title.
Why would it matter what your previous job title was? Why would I care if your previous job title was ‘Grand Vizier of Khyrgistan’? Can you do the job I want you to do now?
If your previous job title was "Doer of a Thing" then a prospective employer is more likely to consider you for a job doing the same (or similar) thing, as it shows you have prior experience doing a thing.
No, it shows that you previously had a job title that calls you a doer of things. I find that these don’t generally correlate with ability to actually do those things.
noobs on HN have been claiming this since the site was created. It's so tiresome that it's actually against site guidelines to make this kind of comment. If you want HN to be a nicer place than reddit, try to follow the guidelines.
