5 ms·
Not to get too cynical, but... it shows loyalty. A CEO that presided over a security breach, kept it as quiet as possible, and only cost the company $35MM. Like
by gkoberger 9y ago
Not to get too cynical, but... it shows loyalty. A CEO that presided over a security breach, kept it as quiet as possible, and only cost the company $35MM. Like it or not, his job is to protect the company, not the users.
Compared to, say, Zuckerberg or Equifax's public raking over the coals.
- leggomylibro 9y ago>A CEO that presided over a security breach, kept it as quiet as possible, and only cost the company $35MM. Like it or not, his job is to protect the company, not the users. Sorry to be pedantic but it'd be 'her job', in this case - Marissa Mayer was CEO at the time.
- gkoberger 9y agoI wasn't sure which to say. Marissa was CEO at the time of the breach, and Tim Armstrong is CEO now. She testified and took a lot of the blame, whereas the fine happened under Tim Armstrong. I figured I'd go with the latter since that's when the fine came down, but I think both deserve credit (good or bad).
- allannienhuis 9y ago'they' is a useful gender-agnostic singular pronoun when you're not sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
- DmenshunlAnlsis 9y agoEnglish is not my first language, so forgive my asking, but isn’t that sort of uncomfortable to use? Looking at the examples given, they’re all PA announcements or something similarly detatched. It also seems easy to confuse with the plural. What’s the point of decreasing the clarity and utility of language for the sake of a percent of a percent who might be bothered?
- allannienhuis 9y agoEnglish is my first language, and I think it sounds fine: > A CEO ... . Like it or not, their job is to protect the company, not the users. It wouldn't sound as correct if the subject was a specific person. In that case the gender-specific pronoun would be better. > Marissa Mayer, as CEO ... . Like it or not, her job is to protect the company, not the users. Even so, use of 'their' in the latter example would still be acceptable, if a little odd, because it's referring more to the role than the person (I think). [edit] for what it's worth, I think you're overwhelming underestimating the percentage of people who think more gender-inclusive language is a useful thing. That said, I didn't suggest the option because I was trying to make that point, I suggested it because the parent was dealing with a situation (unsure of gender of the CEO) where use of the singular they is really effective.
- stordoff 9y agoIt's commonly used, at least in the UK, in informal speech even where the intent isn't to be gender-neutral, so it doesn't feel uncomfortable to use at all.
- ams6110 9y agoYes, singular "they" is confusing and incorrect. "He" is gender neutral in that context.
- icelancer 9y agoNo, it isn't. Gender neutral / non-binary people exist, and "he" is not the correct term.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 9y agoThey exist and should be respected, but represent a tiny minority. Changing pronouns for everyone to please that fraction of the population seems silly unless you’re addressing that fraction.
- gyaru 9y agoNo? "They" is not incorrect nor is it even confusing to understand at all?
- utopcell 9y agoTim Armstrong is not associated with Altaba in any form, so the fine did not happen under him.
- spydum 9y agoIt could potentially cost far more- the $35MM is just the SEC fine, they could still be subject to other actions by differing agencies. Whether that can or will actually happen? Who knows.. but in any case, yahoo is already effectively dead, so this is pretty meaningless imho
- saaaaaam 9y agoHer job. Misogyny. How you could reasonably claim not to know that the CEO of Yahoo was a woman.
- saaaaaam 9y agoHer job. Misogyny. How you could - somewhere like this - reasonably claim not to know that the CEO of Yahoo was a woman I do not know.