4 ms·

Honestly, in an industry that talks about how important collaboration is and then places the most authoritarian minded individuals as our lauded CEOs (Musk, Bez

Honestly, in an industry that talks about how important collaboration is and then places the most authoritarian minded individuals as our lauded CEOs (Musk, Bezos, Gates, Jobs, etc, etc) I just find Charity such a fucking breath of fresh air in terms of communication style and the way she talks about and clearly lives her principles. Honeycomb may not be FAANG-sized, but I'd genuinely give more to work under her than any other current CEO I can think of.

verisimi 2y ago
They are the masters, you and I workers. Collaboration, thinking collectively, is the servile mentality that is preferred in the workers.
- tucnak 2y ago
  To add, nothing is wrong with servile mentality! Not everyone wants to be the big-time leader.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    Imo, one doesn't want either a servile or master mentality. Skip forward.
    - tucnak 2y ago
      I mean, most "servile" people don't think of themselves that way; usually, they only do—if some third party actor managed to impose their judgement on them, fuelled by the actor's own resentment, or personal gain. For instance, this is the basis of communism. "You may make some money, do well for yourself, but you would always remain a prol. Associate. Dissociate. Associate..." This reasoning had determined the structure of Soviet agitprop, and coincidentally, underpins all of modern propaganda, too. (Although "Economics" is not necessarily the subject, as people really don't care about money too much, and how it's distributed, which is what you would expect.) Most people don't feel compelled to "Skip forward"—they don't bother, and much happier for it. Until they do, of course, but that's politics for you.
      - verisimi 2y ago
        If you frame yourself according to a collective, if you are not an individual, you are bound to have a servile (or master) outlook - either is fine. People who don't define themselves according to the group/political/nation/religion/sportball team are the problem.. and left out of the discussion. They are the definition of 'idiots'.

verisimi 2y ago

They are the masters, you and I workers. Collaboration, thinking collectively, is the servile mentality that is preferred in the workers.

tucnak 2y ago
To add, nothing is wrong with servile mentality! Not everyone wants to be the big-time leader.
- verisimi 2y ago
  Imo, one doesn't want either a servile or master mentality. Skip forward.
  - tucnak 2y ago
    I mean, most "servile" people don't think of themselves that way; usually, they only do—if some third party actor managed to impose their judgement on them, fuelled by the actor's own resentment, or personal gain. For instance, this is the basis of communism. "You may make some money, do well for yourself, but you would always remain a prol. Associate. Dissociate. Associate..." This reasoning had determined the structure of Soviet agitprop, and coincidentally, underpins all of modern propaganda, too. (Although "Economics" is not necessarily the subject, as people really don't care about money too much, and how it's distributed, which is what you would expect.) Most people don't feel compelled to "Skip forward"—they don't bother, and much happier for it. Until they do, of course, but that's politics for you.
    - verisimi 2y ago
      If you frame yourself according to a collective, if you are not an individual, you are bound to have a servile (or master) outlook - either is fine. People who don't define themselves according to the group/political/nation/religion/sportball team are the problem.. and left out of the discussion. They are the definition of 'idiots'.