5 ms·
The point being made is that there are no negative consequences to being responsible, so it's an empty statement. It doesn't even mean anything. They're making
by gmd63 4y ago
The point being made is that there are no negative consequences to being responsible, so it's an empty statement. It doesn't even mean anything. They're making the decision because they're being rewarded for it by maintaining a certain level of profitability in the financial reporting game.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> they’re making the decision This is what being responsible for something means.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoThats what 'Power' means. You've got your dictionaries mixed up
- hun3 4y agoBeing responsible means two different things: 1. Causing something. 2. Being held accountable for something, and facing its consequences (e.g. compensating for damage) It's possible that someone can cause something while avoiding its consequences, deferring the responsibility of making up to someone else. This usually happens due to asymmetry of information or power. That said, we cannot say definitely in this particular instance that Sundar could have foreseen the financial circumstances or economic crisis of any kind, and it's also possible that Sundar might resign or get fired in the future as a consequence. Still, one can argue that the phrase "I'm taking full responsibility of [...]" is a bit overused in general, and used in a rhetorical manner without actually meaning it.
- lexapro 4y agoThe honest way to phrase this is "I'm the one who caused this." "Responsibility" is ambiguous as you said, and that's exactly why he chose that word.
- itsoktocry 4y ago>The point being made is that there are no negative consequences to being responsible What "negative consequences" would you like to see? You want to see executives fired over something like this? How do you think that would affect future hiring practices?
- RHSeeger 4y agoSo, if people lower in the totem pole mess up, they should never be fired? Because it might impact future hiring practices? The higher up on the totem pole you are, the less it seems to matter how well you actually do your job.
- actualwitch 4y agoIt's so wild seeing people making claims like these on hn, considering people here also get treated similarly. Are you going to get fired from your job for minor mistake? Would you go work for a company that will fire devs over minor issues? Why should CEO be treated differently?
- RHSeeger 4y agoI'm not sure what's wild about it. As far as I've seen, what I said is entirely true. - If someone very low on the totem pole (ex. factory worker) is late a few times, they're far more likely to be fired than someone higher up. - If a low/mid level manager at a company screws up a project so bad that a bunch of people under them get layed off, they're far more likely to lose their job then a VP that does the same. The point isn't that everyone should get laid off for every mistake. The point is that, the higher up you are, the less likely you are to face _any_ consequences at all for any mistakes. And it's also not a certainly; just a probability.
- actualwitch 4y agoIt's wild because it's completely separated from realities of the business. If you fired CEO over any minor mistake (overhiring sucks, but for CEO it is a minor mistake), the company would die much sooner, because people wouldn't want to work there. You as a developer also are quite high on that pole, and you (probably) won't get fired if you bring down prod for a moment due to mistake in migrations, why should CEO be treated differently?
- lexapro 4y agoIt's like a murderer saying: "I don't regret what I did, I don't think it was wrong, I would do it again, I haven't been caught BUT I take full responsibility for the death of the victim."
- hgsgm 4y agoNo, it's not like that at all, because "murder" presupposes a crime.