|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This is liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiterally what every single bigot in the world says when they get called out. You assumed she was unqualified and then doubled-down on it, blaming her hiring on tokenism. That's sexist and it's bullshit. You're at a crossroads here: Learn and change, or continue being a real "Uber CEO"? Before I posted my original comment I didn't know she was successful. All I knew was she had founded HuffPo and sold it. That's it. So when I saw her on Uber's board I got confused and subsequently assumed (based on what we know about Uber) that she got hired because of her gender and money. I mean Theranos crashed and burned because no one on their board was actually qualified in biochemistry or medicine and therefore questioned the validity of their product, so that's the lens through which I look at these startups now.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
I'd love to hear more about Huffington's politics, especially these books. I mostly know her from her investment in and promotion of pseudoscientific alt-med treatments.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Huffington is perfect for Uber - she knows a ton about hiring contingent labor and not paying. And certainly not unqualified, since she's an established oligarch. Pretty sexist to assume she's a token - she's rich and powerful, not someone they plucked from an internship to look good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd love to hear more about Huffington's politics, especially these books. I mostly know her from her investment in and promotion of pseudoscientific alt-med treatments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
So the big takeaway from Mayer leaving is that nobody on the poll was right
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Guess it's up to the dog chef and dog butler to run Uber. Is that a chef and butler for dogs or a chef and butler that are dogs? Cause either could run Uber better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Before I posted my original comment I didn't know she was successful. All I knew was she had founded HuffPo and sold it. That's it. So when I saw her on Uber's board I got confused and subsequently assumed (based on what we know about Uber) that she got hired because of her gender and money. Founding HuffPo alone would make her more qualified than the typical board member. Generally speaking, board members aren't expected to have deep domain knowledge, just be well connected and have money. From a quick look at Crunchbase, 90% of Uber's board members' qualifications are "has / manages lots of money", the same as any other board. Theranos is a bit different because healthcare in general usually has more of a focus on a knowledgeable board, and it was less that the board members themselves didn't know what was going on so much as they didn't get people who did have a clue to do due diligence during funding. enki42 fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
I mean I wouldn't be surprised if being a woman was the main reason Uber hired her (because they're that dumb) but she definitely has more than enough connections to bring a ton of value. Now, as to whether or not that value is enough to save the depressing shitshow that is Uber is another question entirely 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Obviously the main goal there was to hire a woman who could "address" "issues", that was as explicit as anything in that world can be. She's also perfect for that role. Still think that company will hit the rocks and become salvage, but it won't be her fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Oh, Huffington is definitely a jerk and an opportunist. But if that were a disqualification for being on a Board of Directors...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
The whole point of a board in most industries is to make sure that the people doing the actual day to day operation of the company have access to capital and don't try to do anything that would piss off investors. Thus, it is vitally important that they be well-heeled and powerful enough on their own to not fear anyone at the company, including C-level executives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
You know this but Uber is still private, so investors are either on the board or they can be mostly ignored  Kind of a hot take and the sexism notwithstanding, but Uber bilking Saudi Arabia out of $3.5B might put them in the unintentionally-good column for me. (As long as they eventually hit the rocks hard, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:I mean I wouldn't be surprised if being a woman was the main reason Uber hired her (because they're that dumb) but she definitely has more than enough connections to bring a ton of value. Shes an investor, thats the "value" she brings. Of course uber being uber: https://www.recode.net/2016/4/27/11586456/arianna-huffington-joins-ubers-board-of-directors quote:Huffington brings an “emotional intelligence” the company is lacking to the table, Kalanick wrote in a blog post. Indeed, Huffington’s involvement in the company may help Uber in its quest to soften its image. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/874796727022178304
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Literally the first response shown: https://twitter.com/1000Steps/status/874725321282510848 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Pro move. This way he gets to abandon the sinking ship without alarming any of the other investors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Pro move. This way he gets to abandon the sinking ship without alarming any of the other investors. This is like the puppetmaster defense by proxy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
duz posted:Is that a chef and butler for dogs or a chef and butler that are dogs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Living in SF or NYC results in a lot of deductions due to high state/city taxes -- even if you're a single person with no dependents or other deductions. As soon as you get around 250-300k (could be salary, RSUs, whatever -- there's no difference from the AMT's perspective) -- you're in AMT land. The scenario I was highlighting was that if a senior employee at a pre-IPO company has their equity compensation in the form of ISOs, depending on whether / when the options are exercised in any given year and if there's been a new valuation since granting, there may not be any substantial income subject to AMT in that year. That is with the caveat that you can probably fairly dispute whether that illiquid equity compensation is "reasonable," and if it ever does become liquid you'll probably get hit with AMT then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Pro move. This way he gets to abandon the sinking ship without alarming any of the other investors. I wonder if uber's eventual bankruptcy is going to be like the financial crisis where everyone wrings their hands and says "WHO COULD'VE KNOWN!" but if you were paying attention at all you knew poo poo was hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
axeil posted:I wonder if uber's eventual bankruptcy is going to be like the financial crisis where everyone wrings their hands and says "WHO COULD'VE KNOWN!" but if you were paying attention at all you knew poo poo was hosed up. Mostly it's going to be trying to figure out who to blame. Eventually, given that poo poo rolls downhill, the people with the power who actually caused it are going to get away with zero punishment while everybody else pays the bills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Mostly it's going to be trying to figure out who to blame. Eventually, given that poo poo rolls downhill, the people with the power who actually caused it are going to get away with zero punishment while everybody else pays the bills. So it'll play out exactly like the financial crisis then. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Travis had been failing upwards his whole life, who's going to stop him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:So it'll play out exactly like the financial crisis then. Yup. It's the American way. The rich do whatever they want; the rest of us get the bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Travis had been failing upwards his whole life, who's going to stop him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I forget which company, but some tech company in Europe was looking to fill positions for chef and butler that would serve the dogs of the employees. Dog chef set menus where there was a new menu each day and dog butler did the walking and stuff I guess. Basically start-up culture rear end wiping for the male brogrammers extended to their dogs. quote:A sleep-tracking tech start-up founded by a Briton, which was one of Kickstarter's biggest success stories, has collapsed. So a 22 year old tried to create a startup for something he almost certainly doesn't understand that well (sleep research is a serious thing) and blew through over $40 mil in three years manufacturing a stupid glowing plasticy orb. Then failed to get itself sold to Fitbit. That's still more than I managed at that age but still lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm pretty sure that was actually a joke. Due to limitations in the design, it was incapable of tracking when I slept past noon and would just assume I woke up then. Goddamn amateurs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
If you sleep past noon regularly, I don't think they assumed you'd be in the market for a hundred and fifty dollar lamp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I bought one of these to track and manage my sleep cycle. No wonder they failed so hard, then
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:If you sleep past noon regularly, I don't think they assumed you'd be in the market for a hundred and fifty dollar lamp. What if you work the night shift? Or if you have a hosed up sleep schedule from previously working the night shift? e: and I can't phrase responses properly because I have trouble sleeping at night because of the night shift.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm pretty sure that was actually a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Mostly it's going to be trying to figure out who to blame. Eventually, given that poo poo rolls downhill, the people with the power who actually caused it are going to get away with zero punishment while everybody else pays the bills. Er, are you claiming that someone's going to bail out Uber instead of just letting all the drivers get even more hosed while the execs and top programmers get to walk away with all their ill-gotten cash?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
No, he's saying that the execs will walk with fat stacks and no consequences and the randos will all laid off without ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Of course, when Uber fails the drivers won't see a cent of any money they are owed. They are contractors after all, and accept the risk of the company going bankrupt. At least Uber has an option where drivers can get paid every day, so when that goes down we know they are circling the drain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/875062663163805696 This tweet isn't directly related to a tech startup but I've heard that the practice of forcing non-execs to sign non-compete clauses like this is pretty common in tech and it's becoming more so elsewhere. If these clauses are as unenforceable as I'm always told then why the hell is this practice spreading like wildfire across so many industries? I've even heard about loving Jimmy John's making minimum wage sandwich artists sign these things so they can't use their top-secret sandwich assembly skills at Subway or Jersey Mike's. Is it just intimidation for its own sake, or is there some sort of long-game being cooked up here where this will eventually end up before the Supreme Court in a landmark case further gutting worker's rights?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:If these clauses are as unenforceable as I'm always told then why the hell is this practice spreading like wildfire across so many industries? I've even heard about loving Jimmy John's making minimum wage sandwich artists sign these things so they can't use their top-secret sandwich assembly skills at Subway or Jersey Mike's. Much like all legal agreements: "If you don't ask for it, you don't get it". Basically companies/their lawyers are now so desperate to make sure there's enough crap on the table when contracts end/fall apart that they can use that to bargain some kind of new deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/875062663163805696 They're only unenforceable in California and a few other jurisdictions. In practice, many of them will never actually be enforced regardless because trying to enforce them against minimum wage workers would be a huge waste of a company's money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I know some areas of finance/banking have "garden leave", which is in the business culture to the extent it barely matters whether or not it's enforceable, but big difference is that your employer pays you in the interim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I know some areas of finance/banking have "garden leave", which is in the business culture to the extent it barely matters whether or not it's enforceable, but big difference is that your employer pays you in the interim. That's different and is legal in almost all nations. You can restrict workers from moving to competitors, but you can't do it without paying them for the privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
fishmech posted:They're only unenforceable in California and a few other jurisdictions. In practice, many of them will never actually be enforced regardless because trying to enforce them against minimum wage workers would be a huge waste of a company's money. Right, which is why I'm baffled that these are being thrown at low-level workers to begin with. I can't see a legitimate reason for these to exist in such cases except to be used selectively against certain workers for retaliatory purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:24
|
|