While I agree with your post, I don't really think that goes counter to the original meaning of the argument as a whole. He even mentions some paragraphs later

While I agree with your post, I don't really think that goes counter to the original meaning of the argument as a whole. He even mentions some paragraphs later that CEOs are only fired when line does not go up: > While CEOs do get fired when things go badly, it's often after a prolonged period of decline and stagnancy, and almost always comes with some sort of payoff — and when I say "badly," I mean that growth has slowed to the point that even firing masses of people doesn't make things better. And I think that's what he was gesturing at in the beginning when ranting about Satya. He knows Satya is not an imbecile, he would not survive the cutthroat sociopathic business environment if he was. The logical conclusion is that Satya is just bullshitting on a softball interview to prop up Microsoft's copilot thing. That is a marketing piece, not a proper interview. And on bullshit, it is always important to keep something in mind: "bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false."