3 ms·

I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words,

by jfarmer 15y ago

I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words, though. I'm not equivocating about anything. They're direct, if non-literal, expressions of my opinion. I think the article is lurid and vulgar. I think it's designed to stoke a mob response (cf. earl's comment). I don't think the goal was to uncover "the facts" any more than Hannity and Colmes is designed to uncover the facts. I also think, even if the claims in the article were true, it's tantamount to an article about someone seeing Jack Nicholson yelling at a waitress and making her break down in tears. We like that article because it makes us feel righteous. It's still vulgar, though. (This is actually my last response. I hope the above was sufficiently civil and dispassionate. I'm not sure why being dispassionate is a virtue, though.)

ptiaf 15y ago
There's nothing to learn from the Jack Nicholson article. There's a lot to learn when looking at this situation. Andrew hired too many people for his level of funding, treated them poorly, attempted to ensure untraceable communication, and was dishonest to employees in many ways. And despite all those things, people worked for him because they bought the hype. This is a warning to think about what you're doing before you sign on. Learn what the conditions are really like, what the expectations really are, and what your future is actually likely to hold. Sure, some people might look at this and just think 'Andrew is immature, a lousy leader, and an incompetent manager', but that's not the lesson. I like this because it's a reminder that interviews are two-way conversations, and that employees should pay just as much attention to where they're going to work as employers pay to who they hire.

by jfarmer 15y ago

ptiaf 15y ago

There's nothing to learn from the Jack Nicholson article. There's a lot to learn when looking at this situation. Andrew hired too many people for his level of funding, treated them poorly, attempted to ensure untraceable communication, and was dishonest to employees in many ways. And despite all those things, people worked for him because they bought the hype. This is a warning to think about what you're doing before you sign on. Learn what the conditions are really like, what the expectations really are, and what your future is actually likely to hold. Sure, some people might look at this and just think 'Andrew is immature, a lousy leader, and an incompetent manager', but that's not the lesson. I like this because it's a reminder that interviews are two-way conversations, and that employees should pay just as much attention to where they're going to work as employers pay to who they hire.