mathattack

They just don’t understand selling to businesses in a way that Microsoft or Oracle does.

Making it an investment could be tripped up by whatever might trip up a merger. It’s also more difficult to value the investment. (How much equity should they give up? Same valuation as the implied purchase?)

It’s cost. Multiply population by the amount and you get a huge number. The math only works if you get rid of a lot of others social programs with vested interests.

They’re the ones who have to catch all the nonsense dropped from above. They’re like offensive lineman - never get credit for success, only blame when something goes wrong.

The only thing more painful than using OneDrive is talking to the salesperson who sold it to your company.

I’m sure this fellow is a pleasure to work with.

In reality most of the world operates somewhere between “we’re a factory” and “we are unmeasurable Picassos.”

It’s not a huge stretch to combine thinking that “software is unpredictable” and “people pay up for predictability” so we should still try to tilt that way.

I would never name names but I don’t have 18 years of Google equity. I suspect he didn’t have any non-disparagement clauses to sign.

And Scott Adams also previously worked at a Telco.

KPIs without judgment are bad because you can’t model everything. Judgment without measurement is also bad because we all have human bias. It’s a matter of where you lean first. (Do you check your model, or check your judgment?)

Our old Salesforce rep is now a LinkedIn influencer. We all shake our heads as we know how useless they really were.

Not a sign of legitimacy, just that he’s more than just a snobby jazz writer.

His background is broader than just that. (VC, Stanford, Oxford)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gioia

I had terrible experiences with them as a consumer (shoddy product fs, and not honoring the warranty) though I admit that I appreciate their negative inventory business model.

And a lack of supply that is pushed by owners. (Not just AirBnb owners, all owners)

IBM’s business model is more about squeezing existing customers rather than finding new ones. They made the calculation that squeezing the existing RedHat base is more important than expanding it. This is what mature companies that can’t grow organically do.

That’s exactly it. They won’t raise salaries if Google and Microsoft aren’t in a rush to hire their top engineers anymore. They will when those companies are.

Companies rarely pay based on contribution. They pay based on what it takes to keep someone from hiring you away.

THIS!

Listening to their experts on what add-one to buy is like listening to car salesman on what add-one you should purchase for your vehicles. The incentives just aren’t aligned. Of course cloud-neutral vendors like Mongo are no better.

Could also hedge with swaps or swaptions or mortgage pass throughs. Banks who are very long mortgages frequently short passthroughs. They take enough risk off the table to not have the risk exposure of a hedge fund.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security

It was relatively cheap to hedge the interest rate risk. Most banks did that. SVB didn’t.

This is a natural outgrowth of being owned by IBM. They are in the business of harvesting revenue from existing customers until they revolt. They don’t care about open source or smaller customers. They care about squeezing and auditing the enterprise. This is bad for RedHat because there are other options.

I interpret it as clickbait plus not China or SF.

Thanks for sharing! My experience is dated, and (like everywhere) Japan evolves.

Also gives Grandma or Grandpa something to do. Keeps multi-generational families together.

Seems economically inefficient though that’s not really the goal.

Seems like walking out when the company is doing layoffs is doing their own dirty work for them, no?

My sense is if they think the work can be done remotely, it will be done in a low cost location. It’s too easy to say “You’re not here, you’re fired. Let’s move it to Iowa/Liverpool/India.”

The economics moving is very different when your current mortgage rate is half what a new one would be.

It doesn’t get you compliant. It’s just a matter of the company saying, “Joe who made the mistake took a class in this subject in the past year so it’s his fault, not ours.” And they lose that “he had to know” if it’s been a while since you took the class.

And if they have to give up a half percent of your time for these videos, it’s worth it for them. And usually you parallel process through them anyways.

I think you may be missing the point. This is training as “plausible proof that we have compliance in place.”

So if the company gets in trouble they can say, “100% of the employees will get harassment training” or “100% of the employees will get training on insider trading”

Then the second time they get in trouble they say “This was a rogue employee. 100% of our employees are trained. It’s not our fault.”

That people actually change behavior requires a lot more than a training class.

I’ve dealt with successive generations of massively incompetent salespeople over there. The problem is the CEO’s quote comes through - “Of course we’re the best.” It takes more than assuming the sale to push out an embedded incumbent.