I don't really care about Square's investors (sunk costs are sunk, plus ratchets and other protections), but what does this do to employee retention (and hiring ability)?
I assume people who joined years ago will still do fine, but what about people who joined in the past 6-12mo? Will they get repriced options? Are cash salaries all people care about? Square has (and still does) have some great people, and it's a "robust job market".
> As recently as September, the company [Square] handed out stock options to staff — one of the main perks of jobs in the Valley — valuing it at $15.39 a share, or more than 50 per cent above what the shares were deemed to be worth only six months earlier.
Yes, it is. The reason is you can focus 100% on observing them, their body language, their words, and the dynamic of the conversation. Talking to them means you also have to be participating in the discussion. Additionally, with their focus on you, they are adapting their own style to how you react to it. You have to sort of do the same. That makes the patterns harder to see.
So, many people that do this try to detach themselves. That Jessica further keeps the image or at least visitors' assumption that she might be just a secretary is straight brilliant: almost nobody pays attention to such people. That let's her stay either 100% or nearly so focused on her evaluation of them.
There are two modifications that have shown to be superior. One is that one or more of the interviewers have the same ability to read people. As I said, the difficulty makes these rare people. However, you do see this among talented negotiators, intelligence types, and so on.
The other one is keeping the assessor outside the room but with full visual and audio to pick up the unconscious cues plus a feedback mechanism. This might be a computer or earpiece for one or more interviewers. The reason is that the character assessment might run into situations where it's too vague to make the assessment. So, the person assessing might give a suggestion to the interviewers for how to prod the person to get a specific reaction. This might happen a little or a lot if the overall team has worked together a lot. Eventually, the interviewers get so good at spotting these situations and remembering how they were handled that they intuitively create these opportunities for the remote reviewer without being asked. The results are a more detailed and effective evaluation.
Such a setup is not for everyone. Many prefer just having one or more people talking with another doing more listening and people watching. That's Y Combinator's setup. Many high-stakes interviews or negotiations use the latter method though with lots of effectiveness. That you can read the reviewer while the reviewer can read you probably helps a lot. ;)
I'm confused here -- the argument is that a ratchet which is clearly going to trigger in the IPO is better for employees and other shareholders than a down round? Assuming the odds of IPO are 100%, and if we could assume the down round would be at the same price as the effective price due to ratchet, is there a difference?
I guess there might be other provisions in earlier rounds of equity which would be triggered by a down round vs ratchet in IPO, but is this mainly a distinction of optics?
Very long time for all of them, yes, but marginal employees can be reduced through automation fairly quickly. Go from 3 people to 2 at a restaurant by using more pre-cooked food or automation, buy a better PoS/order management system to remove one waiter from front of house, etc.
You don't even need to fire anyone -- just hire more slowly than otherwise when things are growing, and potentially not replace people when they leave (although that's less scheduled).
The Sikh Regiment of the (British) Indian Army was amazing (and probably should be re-established in the British Army, in addition to the units in the modern Indian Army,) One of the most formidable and honorable military units of all time, completely loyal to the Allies.
The "complication" with India was the (Second) Indian National Army during WW2, following Subhas Chandra Bose, who were allied with the Axis. (They argued fighting colonialism was more important than fighting the Nazis and Imperial Japanese.)
The idea of setting up an open hardware lab for these devices, and some kind of bake-off, is awesome.
Also, I wish someone could do a medical device network security system -- it really isn't the core competency of any of the hardware vendors, and yet is something you can't get wrong. The public protocols (DICOM, HL7, etc.) are at best baroque and don't include the details which matter to security. I wish this didn't have to be a company -- it really could be something funded by NIH or a consortium of device vendors or medical institutions -- but it probably has to be in order to be effective. There's a need for an open standard for medical device security over top of all this, but rather than just publishing a standard, it would be easier to provide working end to end network from device to information system.
The primary cause of these incidents seems to be radicalization of segments of society with 'nothing to lose'. The societal problems involved in the creation of such segments and what can be done about them is a large and complex issue in which some technology will for sure be useful but which is first and foremost a people problem. The seeds for these issues were sown many years ago (and in quite a few cases with those JDAMs and Hellfires which now magically are suddenly part of the solution) and will take decades to repair in a way that these incidents will no longer happen. France is (like several other EU countries) shaping up to become a laboratory about how, if and when these problems are going to be solved. I see no major role for technology here, not in mitigating the harm to innocents and not in the eventual solution. In fact, technology - by virtue of eliminating a large number of blue collar jobs, which gave people something to be proud of and something to lose - is also part of the problem.
Applying a screwdriver to a nail is the wrong tool for the problem, even tough that tool has excellent properties in many other contexts. Technology is not some kind of magic wand that you can point at every problem and make it smaller or disappear, in fact, for some problems technology is so wrong that it makes the problems worse rather than better. I'm not sold on technology having a positive role to play here but I'm open to specific suggestions (just like Ryan originally asked for) and if there are any that might work I will definitely support those, in spite of my skepticism about such solutions in general in the current context based on what technology has been able to achieve on this front to date.
From what I've read on the subject the key unifying element seems to be that those who do these deeds want to 'matter' somehow, even if that can only be in a negative way. How that ties into psychology I have no idea but if you have something to lose that balance shifts measurably, but even then there are still people that can be successfully radicalized. It's a tough problem, that's for sure.
Well if they have reported it, why did it still happen? You are asking me to prove that the NSA hasn't foiled any attacks instead of asking the agency conducting mass surveillance to provide evidence? Just to give you an idea most terrorist attacks on US soil, foiled or not, have been directed by the FBI. Source is The Intercept.
The containment is driving the feedback loop thereby keeping us from improving the situation. We need to take a leap of faith in order to break it.
Like others have said the damage this is causing is mostly mental. The number of random (I mean that as in could happen to anyone not downplaying the significance of human life) deaths caused by terrorism is not so large.
However this does not mean we should tolerate people who refuse to play by the rules of society because of their personal beliefs (whatever they may be). Any countermeasures must be above board and transparently fair.