3 ms·
Obviously false, and now that the author knows it > UPDATE: ... much of the $14b did not go to Alexandr why not change the title as well?
by eviks 1y ago
Obviously false, and now that the author knows it
> UPDATE: ... much of the $14b did not go to Alexandr
why not change the title as well?
- quuxplusone 1y agoThe premise (and headline) isn't that $14 billion went to the one guy; it's that the $14 billion was spent by Meta. It's "Meta spent $14B to...", not "A single guy got paid $14B to..."
- eviks 1y agoYes, if you cut the premise, you'll fail to understand the premise. Just finish the sentence: "to hire a single guy"
- theahura 1y agoI debated changing the title but as the commenters below mention the title is still accurate, as is the rest of the article. Meta was under no obligation to pay that much. Alexandr could have requested that Meta spend $14b on <charity of choice> and the title would still be correct. The only part of the article that I think needs some reworking is an implication in a footnote about how these kinds of deals screw over employees. They do, generally, but not in this case.
- eviks 1y agoI see, so I misunderstood, you simply don't understand how absurd that statement is, then then yeah, the title fits