I can't read the article, but I assume this event[0] is fairly front and center. Interesting that she's out just 6 weeks after this story broke.
It's also some lovely irony that Mrs. Lean-In herself abused her position in facebook in order to attempt to intimidate a reporter from exposing the fact that her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend had to get a restraining order against him.
I never read "Lean In," but one of my favorite blog posts of all time[1] did a truly epic takedown of it, exposing it as a thinly-veiled manifesto for white-collar women to become miserable underpaid status-chasing workaholics.
You don't really need an epic takedown of it to notice it's not how she herself got there. Which is, basically, make friends with famous people (Larry Summers) so they give you unreasonably high profile entry-level jobs.
If the general HN consensus is to be believed, Professional Engineers and Software Engineers Who Write Bare-Metal Code are the only people who have ever attained success commensurate with their effort. Everyone else seems to have had disproportionate advantage - Elon Musk was given too much by his dad, Sheryl Sandberg made friends outside her lane, presumably Steve Jobs parasitized Woz.
Curious distribution. At the bottom are the losers, at the top the cheaters. In the middle are those whose brilliance is undetected by bean counting MBAs who presumably also support open offices, NFTs, and Apple CSAM scanning.
Certainly a large part of her success but the reason she got given those jobs is because of the impression she made, of being a hard working, smart workaholic. Then she continued to be a hard working, smart workaholic. Goal driven people like that tend to do quite well. Not at her level, but she’s unusually smart and unusually workaholic.
Same here. I was never sure if it was a man or woman, I don't think they ever specified (I could be wrong). But they were always fairly upfront about their problems with alcohol. For a while I wondered if it was an alter ego of Scott Alexander.
The hxextract needs a '-' at the end to read from stdin, otherwise curl ends with error 23 indicating pipe closed prematurely. You also need a space after the '-A' or it sees the '-s' as the user agent name. The double quotes adjacent to the '-A' does nothing in that context.
Forgive me, I do not use curl myself, except in HN examples.
As a matter of practice, I never send a User-Agent header. The localhost forward proxy I use does not send it, nor do the HTTP client utilities I write. If some application sends the UA header, the proxy removes it.
How to remove the User-Agent in curl, without editing the source. The idea to use -A "" comes from the curl help text:
If you give an empty argument to -A, --user-agent (""), it will remove the header completely from the request. If you prefer a blank header, you can set it to a single space (" ").
Another way is to use -H:
curl -H User-Agent: https://example.com
One might think that would send a UA header with no value, however it actually removes the UA header.
One of the reasons I dislike curl is that there are too many options and the program is constantly changing. I would have to check older versions but I seem to recall in some past version(s) leaving off a space between the option and the option value had some (useful) effect in curl. Maybe not. At any rate, I apologise for the mistake.
I don't particularly like Sheryl Sandberg, but this strikes me as precisely the kind of "fair weather" treatment I'd expect from Facebook's Boy King: company resources are at the leadership's personal disposal when all is smooth, and is a rope to hang you with as soon as you lose his favor.
I am, blessedly, nowhere close to that "advanced" in my career (or management style).
And I don't think it's obvious; hounding your ex-COO while she's still on your board is eyebrow-raising even by the antisocial standards of executive behavior.
Meh. Reading between the lines here, I would guess she was taking resources from other managers for whatever this “personal” work was, and they called her on it leading to her resignation. Now the news of the investigation comes out… not saying anyone else is in the right here, but I don’t see this investigation as some sort of revenge for her quitting, more like her quitting because of the investigation..
We should assume that before an investigation like that gets publicized, it has been going on for a few months, and allegations had been made weeks/months before that.
I don't think it's surprising at all, especially in a big company like Facebook. At that kind of company, at that level, it's a snakepit. The more you did for the company, the deeper the knife in your back will go.
People seem drawn to the fantasy of sociopathic behavior, like Game of Thrones and 'reality' TV shows with zero-sum outcomes. People aren't angels, but they aren't sociopaths either.
Also, Zuckerberg needs the loyalty of talented people, present and future; if it looks like even Sandberg gets stabbed in the back, then that loyalty will be hard to come by. Also, burning the bridge with Sandberg will burn the bridge with Sandberg's network, which is probably considerable. Nobody rules alone.
> People will stand for it if they accept this sort of denial that it's happening!
I agree completely - it's an essential point that is rarely made. I am not denying it's happening; I'm talking about the notion that everyone is a sociopath. That doesn't mean Zuckerberg isn't doing something ~sociopathic right now.
Moreover, if someone is talented and driven and charismatic and a sociopath, then they are probably at an advantage compared to someone who is missing one or more of those characteristics.
By default, one should assume the most successful people have every superlative quality, from those that are most admirable to least.
> someone is talented and driven and charismatic and a sociopath, then they are probably at an advantage compared to someone who is missing one or more of those characteristics.
As I wrote above, people seem drawn to the fantasy of sociopathic behavior. They fear it and thus try to master it, following its feared power. We fear it, and the sociopaths (of course) try to amplify that - because they are weak. Look at Vladimir Putin or Saddam Hussein. All it takes is one person to stand up to them.
Have no fear. The world isn't perfectly just, evil happens, but humans are much more powerful as social, not sociopathic, creatures. Good is more powerful, really; we vastly outnumber the sociopaths. No dictator's dominion has ever even approached the heights of democracies based on human rights. George Washington, Ghandi, Churchill - they weren't sociopaths. Putin is; Zelenskyy is not.
But good people do need to believe in themselves, to act, and to act courageously. That's almost all Gandalf did (in the books), is to remind good people of their power and courage. Right now, we are only missing a leader.
Many people, of course, think Stalin was one of the greatest monsters in history, among other reasons, for the Holodomor, Soviet man-made famine.
I don't know what a sociopath is, ultimately, but it's not nearly as obvious as you think that Churchill goes in a different bucket than Stalin.
Oh and Gandhi...Gandhi famously said in response to the Holocaust that the Jews should've committed mass suicide since they were going to die anyway, and then maybe the world would've given a shit.
George Orwell (who was an apologist and ineffective propagandist for British colonialism during WWII) praised Gandhi for honesty and adhering to his principles, but claimed he didn't understand totalitarianism, that his movement could not have succeeded in Nazi Germany because it wouldn't have gotten any publicity.
You are debating someone who said they were saints, which I didn't, or with someone who fits some strawperson profile in your mind.
> it's not nearly as obvious as you think that Churchill goes in a different bucket than Stalin
You might be surprised that I might know more about it than you imagine, maybe more than you. It is pretty obvious that they belong in different buckets.
That's fine. I am not debating what a sociopath is, we can agree it's some kind of bad thing and if you would like to define it better be my guest.
My point is and was, that you didn't list Stalin, and putting him in either list is...problematic, as they say, when you consider Churchill and the Bengal famine.
Now I am not making any straw man or putting words in your mouth. I am interested in how you fit Stalin into your framework, not in telling you how to.
I'm not pushing the moral equivalence of Stalin and Churchill. Not at all. I'm just saying that there are well known facts that could support the opinion they are similar, and I'm fairly confident there are a lot of people (maybe millions) with that opinion.
That doesn't mean you or I need to accept it, but it does suggest to me that, from a global perspective, it should be considered respectable or at least not shocking.
There is a Wikipedia page on Washington-and-slavery, and while this is a tangent I don't want to discuss here and now, being aware of it makes the question of how to define a sociopath very complex in my mind.
Keep in mind that it isn’t usually really sociopathicness. Sociopath denotes a particular type of negative pathology that rarely can exist in a real leadership position for any length of time. By definition it’s too destructive.
That being said, low empathy/low affect for others emotional and mental state is a clear advantage past a certain (low) organizational level, if combined with decision making that does weight it at least a little. A lot of people call that sociopathic, but that is because they haven’t met an actual sociopath.
Caring about people has advantages in our day to day lives (especially for others), but being able to make clear headed pragmatic decisions about people for your benefit (with sometimes severe negative consequences for others) isn’t one of them.
And if someone is in a leadership position and can’t do that, they won’t be effective. The larger the scope of the leadership position, the more true it is.
Ineffective leadership dooms everyone, sooner or later.
Oh I read it. You're responding to a strawman. I never said being a sociopath is helpful - I said it isn't, and you pretty much never see it.
What I said is helpful, isn't sociopathy. What is helpful is not having a bleeding heart. Being able to make the right call, even if it hurts someone, or many someones. The higher up you go, the more necessary it is.
I started out in industry at a low level, and worked myself up to senior leadership at a Fortune 50 company. I've founded several companies. I've had to fire friends who were really, really trying hard. I've had to hire folks I didn't like. I've had to lay off teams, and shut down one of my own companies (and lay off everyone I'd hired, which I did face to face) not because what they were doing was bad, but because it didn't fit the market anymore. I do care about people, and it has cost me quite a bit of emotional trauma that I see others not have. It has given me a positive reputation and general like well after the fact, but that doesn't scale or work in other situations.
1) The larger the organization, the more likely you'll run across someone who is bad and is skillful at using emotion to manipulate others (playing the victim, pushing buttons, you name it) and those people need to be removed. If you can't handle making the call and seeing it through despite the tugging at the heart strings, it poisons the organization. The problem being, most people will do it to some extent when their jobs or livelihoods are on the line. There is no 'clean' way to do this generally, though money can help (severance). It can also be very expensive.
2) The larger the organization, the bigger the impact of a layoff, change in strategy, etc. and the larger the emotional toll of doing what needs to be done. The more you are friends with everyone, the more the toll generally. But it doesn't change the necessity of it. In fact, it magnifies the cost in real terms if it isn't done. Sometimes to 100's or more of median 'life work value' (aka total economic output for a lifetime for a median person).
Being overly empathetic or sensitive to this just makes it harder, and if it is harder, eventually that person will hit a point they can't do it. Which makes someone ineffective and prolongs and magnifies the actual damage.
While the positive/great side is awesome - making things work, getting organizations working together, making everyone productive and value creators instead of destroying value - the negative/downside that can happen sometimes is much harder than most people are willing to face.
A common way of coping for this is to draw emotional distance between oneself and ones reports, which also has downsides. Another way is 'othering' them, which has even more major downsides. Another way is disempowering oneself (oh, I had to do this because I was told to), but that has even MORE major downsides. Either way, the more someone feels it, the harder it is to do. Being inauthentic or out of touch with people however, makes it nearly impossible to avoid being toxic and damaging more than is required. It also destroys the ability to do the POSITIVE side of leadership, and is ultimately destructive to the leader.
Rarely, someone will be empathetic AND be able to do this at a large scale. Seeing what they do up close however, they often shut off the degree of emotional exposure they get, and make sure that many of the hardest decisions are done in a clinical way out of view, so they can be effective in those situations.
So think of it as a filtering mechanism. Folks who make it to a certain place, they have reasons they survived and others didn't. Sometimes it's sheer luck, but more often than not, it's certain survival traits and ways of looking at the world that happened to click in the right way.
The thread that runs through this is loyalty to an organization and the assumption that it will be reciprocated.
But reality is that there are all sorts of conflicting interests, and no principle can tell you how to resolve them in all cases.
You can do all sorts of things that hurt individuals in pursuit of the organizational goals because you think it serves a higher purpose, but the organization can be corrupted.
As a non-manager, I try to always remember that my manager's job is to mediate conflicts of interest, and if they are defending the organization's interest, I won't take it personally. But, since I am not a manager, I pursue my own interest, or try to help individuals that I like.
There are few organizations with a hold over their managers/executives so strong that human emotion cannot ever sway them. If that is the case, then how do things get back on track if the whole organization goes astray?
Faith in whatever the mission is supposed to be, cannot be taken as a given.
That's a loaded pejorative, not a meaningful, defined term. It expresses your emotion about it, but doesn't inform us.
> Being overly empathetic or sensitive to this just makes it harder
'Overly' is a circular argument - if someone is 'overly' X, then they are by definition 'too much X'. The question is, what is too much?
I think avoiding empathy is just weakness and intentional ignorance - ignoring essential consequences of your actions, which results in bad decisions If someone is a good leader, they have the strength to face all the conseqences of their actions and to plan and execute actions that take them into account. If you are engineering a car, and the seatbelt isn't fitting into the seat design, you don't discard the seatbelts and say - 'people who ignore safety make more functional decisions'.
Sandberg was effectively co-CEO, in everything but title. Her and Zuckerberg had divided up responsibilities, it wasn't a matter of strategy vs operations i.e. CEO vs COO. That's pretty clear from articles on her.
As long as Zuckerberg needed her to build up the company, which he was too inexperienced to do, that setup was fine. But at some point a king gets paranoid about having an obvious successor around, particularly as his confidence grows. So he's divided up her responsibilities among a wider group of underlings; he's not going to have another obvious successor around. I'd guess he's been taking responsibilities away from her for a while.
As to loyalty, Sandberg's network etc, note that this article is about her wrongdoing, effectively attacking her reputation. These investigations have apparently been going on for a while. It's not even the first article about this that I've seen; you want to guess who's been feeding this information to the WSJ and others? With this kind of stuff sloshing around, who in Facebook's upper management is going to stand up and cry foul? Exactly nobody, that's who.
Do you usually find that movies and TV accurately represent things in real life that you have actual knowledge about? I don't, so my prior is that semi-fictionalized accounts bear more resemblance to what the writer thinks is compelling than reality.
It is woefully common to see people unironically cite outright fiction as evidence because it supports their preconceptions. Not even "this sounds a lot like Jurassic Park" style. I have seen people actually citing Elysium as "evidence" of supposed malevolence of the rich far too often. It is part of the larger culture of bullshit in the "complete insensitivity to the truth" sense.
When the company was doing well, the stock was doing great, etc etc, it was all good. Now that the story isn’t looking as great, we’re seeing execs get thrown under the bus.
I’m not pushing any opinion on whether she did something wrong or unacceptable. But this is happening, just as Dave Clark “resigns” from Amazon, who also doesn’t have the same economic outlook they benefited from during the pandemic.
Amazing how quickly these execs fall out of favor.
The closest comparison I can think of from my big tech experience is the show “Man in the High Castle”, not an amazing show or anything, but I see parallels in the way it captures how Nazi henchmen were sitting high one minute and potentially murdered the next minute, or as soon as they fell out of favor.
Yeah I know I sound absurd drawing any kind of comparison with Nazi Germany.
But in my experience, it doesn’t matter who you are. You always have some boss, if you don’t deliver and meet their expectations, you’ll get thrown under the bus pretty rapidly. There’s more empathy in first level and skip level managers at Amazon than any director level.
In my time at Amazon, I was actually trained and coached on removing myself from certain situations and not interfering or establishing certain relationships because it would help me ultimately do better whatever is right for the company.
(I was a 11 year Amazon veteran before I left last year).
"When you're the janitor, reasons matter," Jobs told his newly-minted VPs. "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering."
"In other words,' (Jobs continued,) "when the employee becomes a vice president, he or she must vacate all excuses for failure. A vice president is responsible for any mistakes that happen, and it doesn't matter what you say."
I've heard some economic analysis that indicates that this is why executives are paid so much. As an exec, you're responsible for company performance, and if the company underperforms, you will get fired, and this could be for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with anything you did. To get people who actually understand & respect the risks (you don't want anyone who doesn't in an exec position), you have to pay them enough that they're basically set for life after a few years in the job, because in a few years they may find themselves unemployed and unemployable.
(Of course, this creates another moral hazard issue, where once you've paid them all this money and given them this generous severance option, they have no incentive to actually do well, because they're already collecting their retirement plan. C'est la vie - this is why you get execs that make superficial changes while the company lumbers on to its demise, and then cache out with 9-figure parachutes when everything goes bankrupt.)
> ...and this could be for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with anything you did.
My father used to captain ships, and once explained to me that if the ship runs aground, it doesn't matter that the captain was asleep in his bunk at the time. He was responsible and would be court martialled for it. That meant he made damn sure his XO standing the night watch was competent and sober.
It doesn't matter if you didn't do anything. You should have done something. That's the job. You're responsible.
A lot of jobs pay in social status… whether you’re a university professor, or a destroyer captain, an airline pilot, or even something really highly-compensated like a doctor, a large part of the compensation is that even complete strangers clearly understand how you fit into society. They will respect you beyond what you get from mere salary.
> in a few years they may find themselves unemployed and unemployable.
Are they really though? To take just one example, Sheryl Sandberg would still make a perfectly good senior product manager or something. Lots of places would hire her and it has great wages and benefits (by the standards of us mere mortals).
That’s hilarious. She was COO of a company with 80K employees. She’s worth $1.6B. You think anyone is going to pay her an amount she’d care about to be a senior PM? You think she cares about benefits?
Fidji Simo (who was 1-2 levels under Sheryl on the org chart) is now the CEO of Instacart.
People in this thread are dramatically underestimating the position and compensation she just left.
You misunderstood me. I was responding to a comment that execs must be paid enough money to never need to work again because they may be "unemployable" if they are fired. I was making the case that this isn't literally true, and even if they have to go back to the job they were doing before becoming an exec (and I don't know if Sandberg was ever a PM), it's not some terrible situation. Obviously Sandberg isn't going to become a PM. But she might have if she was only worth 1.6m and for some reason really unhireable for another CXO position.
Unless an exec is fired for financial fraud or serious misconduct (and even the latter isn't always a barrier, there are many counterexamples) they'll pretty much always find another role of equal status, if maybe not equal comp, if they want it.
A lot of companies won't hire former execs that have been the center of the world, because they figure anything they could offer them is a step down and the exec will be bitter and demoralized about their loss of status. It's not necessarily an accurate perception - I know plenty of people who don't care about status and are just looking for interesting things to do - but it tends to be more accurate among the population that gets to the exec level in the first place.
Marissa Mayer is running a startup lab now, Amit Singhal is doing philanthropy, Travis Kalanick is starting ghost kitchens, Eric Schmidt is also doing philanthropy plus venturing into politics & punditry, Andy Rubin is a venture capitalist, Chris Sacca retired to Montana and occasionally appears on Shark Tank. While they may have the skills to take lower-level corporate jobs, the folks who reach those levels generally don't have the personality or inclination for it.
Cypriot passports yes, peace out of America no. Just yesterday it came out that he funds a lot of technology and national-security offices within the government:
I had a negative reaction when I heard about this, but I’m also coming from a privileged position of having more than one developed-world passport (immigrant parents) so I really can’t criticize. If I was in his position maybe I’d do the same.
She would most definitely not make for a good pm, I'll tell you that much. Her org was a carnival of poor management and lackadaisical attention to detail. She never struck me as someone that sweats the details.
While the above approach works.. I'd argue that it leads to a highly conservative attitude amongst senior management. At some point, everyone wants to be well known enough to be respected - but not so well known as to be tied to any initiative.
Smart managers seem to understand this dynamic and simply "hide" extra head count to allow for the "high risk" projects without external scrutiny.
> you have to pay them enough that they're basically set for life after a few years in the job, because in a few years they may find themselves unemployed and unemployable
I'd guess that macroeconomic conditions could have nothing to do with what an executive did. I'm sure there are cases where you're held responsible for absolute, rather than relative performance, so even if you did some brilliant thing they minimized downside, if the stock went down you're still screwed.
This tangentially reminds me of the gas price stuff. I (while not a Democrat) see Biden et al getting a lot of flack for gas prices, while realistically there is not some magic lever that the US could throw that would change the overall economic conditions - I'm sure they could do better or worse, but prices would still be higher. The subtlety either gets lost on people, or they just use it for political gain and pretend its because of something the government did.
Same for executives, you're presumably constantly fighting back attempts to take your spot, and any perceived problem will be leveraged to try and push you aside.
In business, if you can't succeed in the current climate, you shouldn't have the job. The job is to succeed in the current climate.
Of course, it's not intended as a logical extreme. People make adjustments in their expectations based on circumstances. But ultimately, you are responsible, especially at that high level (VP of Apple). If you can't deliver the results, why should people pay you?
Government is different: A businessperson controls a business, someone governing can't control reality. But they also can't throw up their hands - again, if they can't do the job, they shouldn't take it.
> In my time at Amazon, I was actually trained and coached on removing myself from certain situations and not interfering or establishing certain relationships because it would help me ultimately do better whatever is right for the company.
Can you please elaborate on this with some concrete examples, if possible?
Dave Clark left to become CEO of Flexport. Maybe the retail conditions influenced this decision, but CEO of Flexport seems like an obvious fit for him.
> Curious how even the most die-hard leftists seem to be a-ok with this.
You should talk with some actual 'leftists'! They aren't at all what your sources say. Just read some leftist blogs or news sources or talk on HN. It turns out that the great majority of people of all stripes are reasonable, normal humans, and the those who tell you otherwise are the threats, the ones trying polarize and control others through hate - if people started having civil, respectiful conversations, the polarizers would be done.
I've come to realize and eventually accept that it shouldn't be called "left/right" but rather "faster/slower".
As we vote, we don't strike a ±10 on some symmetrical scale; rather we decide between 0-10 on some speed range.
It correlates with the strong observation in poli. sci. that the older we get, the more we tend to vote conservatively (the younger we are, the less we stand to lose since a life has yet to be made and wealth be accumulated; conversely the older we get, the more stakes we have to lose if we upend the status quo). This seems true across cultures and generations, and corroborated by a slew of psych. data.
Your "normal" range of people (able to have a reasonable discussion etc.) is a fat 70-ish % of the population, centered on some '5' speed mark. Astoundingly, these people both left and right are ignored by insanely polarized politics who mostly focus on the edges, the extremes, where electoral battles are seemingly won in a dirty side-effect of the uninominal voting scheme. Hint: rank-based choice is one easy solution to this problem, but notice how most parties around the democratic world seem to ignore that yet simple and easily computable fact as of the 21st century.
What I mean is that we choose to mislabel and misunderstand the problems and their solution; somehow this insane polarized and wildly suboptimal situation is maintained by whoever's in charge at most political forces as we speak.
I think it's time we bring back some engineering mindset in the design of societal governance, because we might just have been too busy making the internet to notice that the people in charge are no wiser than most of us; in fact they're pretty much the very type of human beings we usually don't listen to for serious matters —at least when we're on the 'good' timeline of humanity.
> Hint: rank-based choice is one easy solution to this problem, but notice how most parties around the democratic world seem to ignore that yet simple and easily computable fact as of the 21st century.
Please stop thinking the "democratic world" means the US. The countries with that broken system are US, Canada, UK and former colonies. Meanwhile in the EU the norm is proportional representation, which doesn't have that problem.
Furthermore, i disagree with the notion that social or economic progress means "losing" something to significant amounts of the population ( higher taxation of the highest income individuals would be a loss for them, but they're a fraction of a fraction of the population), and i disagree even more with the notion that younger people have less to lose, especially on the social axis.
> I think it's time we bring back some engineering mindset in the design of societal governance
I'd love to see that, but for engineers (who generally value things like accuracy), being involved in politics is particularly distasteful. Instead, we live in world run by lawyers and moderated by marketing consultants, where the truth is unimportant, and discarded completely if it's a hurdle to winning.
There are ways to fix this, even simple, well known ways (your suggestion of ranked choice voting being one of them), however the paradox is that those who have the power to implement them, are the ones who are benefiting from the status quo, thus have no incentive to fix things.
> I'd love to see that, but for engineers (who generally value things like accuracy), being involved in politics is particularly distasteful. Instead, we live in world run by lawyers and moderated by marketing consultants, where the truth is unimportant, and discarded completely if it's a hurdle to winning.
Look at Facebook, adtech, cryptocurrency, etc. and tell me how honest and accurate engineers are.
If you really care about the truth, discard these simplistic notions about lawyers, marketing, engineers, etc. They are fodder for Internet discussions, a distraction for the public, but serious reality is a very different thing.
> I think it's time we bring back some engineering mindset in the design of societal governance, because we might just have been too busy making the internet to notice that the people in charge are no wiser than most of us; in fact they're pretty much the very type of human beings we usually don't listen to for serious matters —at least when we're on the 'good' timeline of humanity.
This is a classic mistake, thinking you or your tribe (in this case your profession) are a special case that will save others. You're right that 'the people in charge are no wiser than most of us', but also you are no wiser than they are. It's humanity all the way down!
It's the people who think they are superior and will help everyone else that are the danger - in fact, the magic of democracy is that it give the power to the everyone else. Often, those superior people are blind to and disregard the needs of others - they are superior and know better, after all - and they have another big problem:
The only way you (or I) can really help is to realize that, and realize we are prone to the same mistakes, biases, corruption, systemic influence, etc. If you don't, then you won't anticipate and manage those risks, and they will sweep you up like so many of your predecessors.
To put it in engineering terms, you would be like a developer who expects that they, unlike everyone else, will write bug-free software and therefore schedules deadlines that way and worse, doesn't provide for any tests, documentation, debugging, failure modes, etc.
Many of your predecessors thought the same as you, and were eaten alive and swept away by the systems in place. Those systems haven't survived by being easy to overcome; plenty of smart people have tried. And there are plenty of hardened veterans of it who will be licking their lips when they see you coming.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved - do, by all means! But please go in with plenty of humility.
The difference between countries and companies is competition. If you're in a dictatorial company and don't like the dictator, leave and work for a different company. If you're in a dictatorial country, you're stuck.
Hmmmm it's almost as if they want to make her look bad. CAREFUL, she knows all of Marc's secrets. If pushed hard enough she may flip to protect her ( fake ) 'do gooder' image. Go on, Sheryl, tell the CA AG what really happened re: Cambridge Analytica.
Well, I think that's the point. I think Zuck is trying to warn Sheryl about trying to distance herself from Facebook as part of reputation rehabilitation campaign.
I think so, maybe to also deny her some stock options or something lol. She probably thinks the whole metaverse thing is a boondoggle and pipedream of Zuck and he's mad now and turning on her.
Sheryl Sandberg's decline reminds me of Theranos. It was riding high as a kite until it all came crashing down and everyone came out of the woodwork to pile on and say "we always knew!!!"
Not sure I understand your point. There's nothing similar between the two except for women as the protagonists. There is no allegation of fraud with Sandberg, and I'm not seeing anyone (much less "everyone") saying about Sandberg that they "always knew."
They both had impeccable images and were admired universally but both images were a carefully curated facade.
Not sure what them being women have to do with anything I said. Please let’s not speculate.
Edit: I’m not able to find the Article from a few years ago that detailed Sandberg’s “real” personality. But I was shocked because I’ve always greatly admired her.
In the case of Elizabeth Holmes, I do actually feel the media played down the role of her partner in crime at Theranos, Sunny Balwani (a man) in all the fraud.
Also in the case of Holmes there wasn't anything there. It was all fraud. In the case of Sandberg, no doubt she's a supremely capable executive. But her image in the media was carefully curated by a PR campaign and totally not true, according to that article I frustratingly can't find now.
I am only talking about their public image, not what their jobs were.
Theranos lied and damaged some people with false blood reports. Sheryl Sandberg may not have lied, but many would argue Facebook damaged many people with addiction and psychological manipulation that, in some cases, could have resulted in suicides, stalking, eating disorders, depression, etc.
It's also some lovely irony that Mrs. Lean-In herself abused her position in facebook in order to attempt to intimidate a reporter from exposing the fact that her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend had to get a restraining order against him.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/21/activision-blizzard-bobby-...