bro I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but your answers make it seem like you're living in a contaminated hellhole and terrified of contact with the local water
it's not a good defense for indiscriminate contamination of water, if that's what you're trying for
This happens naturally with age, usually starting sometime between age 45-50, as your eyes shift from variable focus to fixed focus (at distance). Google presbyopia.
brain fog, no smell, and reduced lung capacity. elevated liver enzymes in the bloodwork showed i wasnt crazy. oh, i should mention probiotics helped out too, along with the vaccine.
> asking for info, not doubting anything!
sure, just hesitant to answer because im not looking for a debate on this stuff anymore, got enough of that in my day-to-day while i was symptomatic. after the last 3 years i just want to put it all behind me and get everything back to normal.
This is a surprisingly naive thing to say in the era of a CEO having a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder-value over the short-term / their tenure (whichever is shorter)
Can you give an example of a time when a CEO or board of directors lost a suit for taking the morally upright option instead of trying to maximize share value? I often hear people talking about this, but it's always generalities rather than specific occurrences.
This is a myth that refuses to go away. A business can go in whatever direction it chooses, even if it hurts shareholders, employees, or other stakeholders by doing so. Anything short of directly looting the company coffers by directors is fine in a legal sense. Shareholders can just sell if they lose faith in leadership, or put pressure on the board.
That's not right either, the board and officers have fiduciary duty to act in shareholders' interest and to use reasonable business judgment. Less strict than maximizing profit, but more strict than anything-legal-goes.
Are you somehow unaware of the regular reliability issues (6 incidents in 2023 alone), downtime, collapse in revenue, advertisers erosion of trust, etc?
Personally, I couldn't classify that as 'operational' - but maybe I just have high standards and expectations
Twitter used to not work for me. I would actively avoid clicking on links to tweets as they would reliably not load on the first try, refreshing wasn't reliable either, and was quite slow.
I am today an active user of Twitter, and never have these issues anymore.
I don't use twitter much but I've always found it quite incredibly unreliable (for what it is and how many engineers they had working on it). Something was always "going wrong" with it. I haven't actually noticed any difference post-Musk. I'd easily believe if you pulled up stats showing it did get worse, there's simply been nothing you'd call an implosion of the service. It used to kind of work most of the time, and it still does.
I haven't really looked at financials. It's never been what you'd call healthy though, sans SV-bubble. I have heard they lost a lot of revenue since Musk took over but I'd imagine there has been a collapse in opex too so it's difficult to judge that one way or the other.
As for trust, I think a lot has been gained as well due to more transparency about their involvement with government censorship programmes. Again hard to really chalk that up one way or the other.
I'm not saying Twitter has suddenly become the golden goose under Musk, or that no technical operational aspect of it suffered after laying off 80% of their staff though, so this doesn't really address my point. My point is Twitter must have had a vast amount of positions that were not providing value and its actually refreshing to see a CEO go in and ask people to explain what they do, take bold action, and take ownership of those decisions.
The meek, managed, MBA, CEO style is to release a canned statement saying how sorry they are and how horrible they feel, and delegate salary or head count reductions down the line which actually doesn't help much with the dead wood situation and can even entrench it because they're often in lower level executive positions themselves.
My company has recently been through a round of these job cuts and we fired good, productive, very long term experts and immediately had to move people in other places to fill their exact positions (badly, because they barely worked with that code before and have to learn it all). Why? Because they worked in different branches of the organization. They fall under different VPs, and the edict said that everybody had to trim X%. It had nothing to do with what work they did, targets had to be hit so they had to go.
I would have killed to be able to take it to the CEO and be asked to explain what those people did to justify why they should stay on. That's why I find Musk a breath of fresh air. Not because he posts infantile memes on twitter or is rude to employees -- I don't think that twitter convo was very tasteful, he could certainly stand to improve how he goes about things. I just think his approach to running companies has some merit.
