6 ms·
So your entire point is that there is nothing a CEO can do, ever, that would let an outsider form an opinion on how effective they are. And even if I was an em
by albinofrenchy 11y ago
So your entire point is that there is nothing a CEO can do, ever, that would let an outsider form an opinion on how effective they are.
And even if I was an employee; well there are always disgruntled employees, their opinion isn't reasonable either.
These are absurd arguments. By the same logic, the CEO of whole foods could hold a press conference and just go on a racist, hateful rant, and I couldn't possibly have a meaningful opinion on their effectiveness as a CEO.
In any event, the people I meant who did have the internal data weren't employees, I meant their board of directors.
And is it possible that a CEO is really awesome, but really really unlucky, and it just _looks_ like they are bad at their job outwardly? Sure, there is some non-zero chance of this; much like there is some non-zero chance of damn near anything.
Perfect information is an impossible ideal; arguing that a rational opinion is impossible regardless of any circumstance since we don't have access to all the information which exists would imply that no person can have a rational opinion about anything, ever.
- vehementi 11y agoPretty much, yes - as much as it feels super tingly great inside to feel like you've judged the career effectiveness of that person you don't know, you really don't have much info at all, and this doesn't fall into the extreme argument of "while you know 99% of the things, you technically don't know 100%, so it's unknowable - checkmate!" And yes, literally it is true that the CEO of whole foods could go on a huge racist rant and you could not have a meaningful opinion on their effectiveness as CEO. Or rather, what you want to say is "in this extreme example, this CEO is clearly ineffective", but we know of morally shitty CEOs who drive huge company growth & profits and are therefore effective CEOs. Anyway, can you show your work that you were referring to behind your analysis of the magnitude of the damage that the recent reddit blackout did?
- albinofrenchy 11y agoThe traffic log you linked does show significant hits, and a very large numbers of users claimed to have de-whitelisted reddit from adblock. Terms like 'voat' and 'reddit alternative' skyrocketed in trends. I don't think this is the 'digg moment' or anything, and I doubt voat exists for any length of time, but I very much doubt investors are looking at these trends and doubting the magnitude of the damage. Reddit is only profitable if it retains users, especially if they disable ad block and want to buy 'gold'. More substantially, if all AMA teams really are going to be running the show without official reddit support, this cuts in a couple of ways. It shows a maintained lack of faith in reddit from the moderators, and it also is going to make the logistics of AMAs more difficult. The AMAs are unique content which is a substantial draw of new users, where a ton of the work was already done by volunteers. The logistical strain is going to make for less or worse content, pick your poison. High profile guests, especially those not technically savvy, are less likely to participate without admin support being available. Strategically, reddit almost certainly wants to be involved in this -- they want to be tightly coupled, enough that the group can't spin off their own version. I don't think this damage is irreparable, but I do think it's going to take substantial work to fix. And I mean, don't take that from me, take it from them -- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_apologize/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_ap....