3 ms·

I don't disagree with the notion that WeWork is a shady "tech" company but this article is terribly written and hard to follow. I couldn't even make it halfway

I don't disagree with the notion that WeWork is a shady "tech" company but this article is terribly written and hard to follow. I couldn't even make it halfway through. > The thing _begins_ with an epigram: “We dedicate this to the energy of we — greater than any one of us, but inside all of us.” Yeah, every S-1 I have read starts with marketing materials. How is this at all relevant? > I am just going to drop The We Company’s org chart here because it honestly leaves me speechless Do not just add random images to your article and not explain or discuss them. The org chart was not even relevant to what you were discussing. I basically gave up after that because it took the author 4 more paragraphs to even fully state their "soap opera" thesis.

kccqzy 7y ago
The org chart was absolutely relevant. It was evidence that the company was structured in an incredible way that's just waiting for disasters to enfold.
- kickopotomus 7y ago
  I absolutely agree that it is relevant to the discussion but not where/how the author introduced it. The image is just distracting and confusing without any sort of commentary. The author even plainly states that they don't understand it in the caption: > This is the planned structure for The We Company after its IPO, as it appears in its S-1 form. I’d try to explain it, but I don’t understand what the fuck is happening. If you don't get it but you want readers to be aware of it then either just link to it or put it at the end after you have made your argument. Don't place it at the beginning before you have even fully explained the premise of the article.
- endlessvoid94 7y ago
  Just because the author "doesn't understand what the fuck is going on here" does not make it a bad investment, a terrible company, and so on.
unreal37 7y ago
I liked the article. And agree with it's premise. Softbank has apparently driven up the valuation of We to $47 billion or so for no apparent reason. The entire company structure exists to serve the founder. The company even paid $4 million to buy the rights to "We" from him so that they can change their name from WeWork to We. It will be interesting to watch.

kccqzy 7y ago

The org chart was absolutely relevant. It was evidence that the company was structured in an incredible way that's just waiting for disasters to enfold.

kickopotomus 7y ago
I absolutely agree that it is relevant to the discussion but not where/how the author introduced it. The image is just distracting and confusing without any sort of commentary. The author even plainly states that they don't understand it in the caption: > This is the planned structure for The We Company after its IPO, as it appears in its S-1 form. I’d try to explain it, but I don’t understand what the fuck is happening. If you don't get it but you want readers to be aware of it then either just link to it or put it at the end after you have made your argument. Don't place it at the beginning before you have even fully explained the premise of the article.
endlessvoid94 7y ago
Just because the author "doesn't understand what the fuck is going on here" does not make it a bad investment, a terrible company, and so on.

unreal37 7y ago

I liked the article. And agree with it's premise. Softbank has apparently driven up the valuation of We to $47 billion or so for no apparent reason. The entire company structure exists to serve the founder. The company even paid $4 million to buy the rights to "We" from him so that they can change their name from WeWork to We. It will be interesting to watch.