OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future • Hacker News Board

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#321

Post by doctorpangloss » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

goldbaronyx wrote: post #237

tonic_note wrote: post #204

Good satire. I find the "RTO is because of RE valuations" to be the most bizarre thing about the post pandemic work discourse. Office leases are a rounding error to large employers. They are not coercing employees back to the office because their worried about the value of a single portfolio asset falling (assuming they even own it). They are doing it because it's about power. Middle managers do not trust their staff…

> Middle managers do not trust their staff. They need to surveil and police 2010-2016 in SF there was no such thing as a manager except PM who had no power (they were mostly just happy to be there). Over time middle management and HR got insane - became the entire show. The whole point of a tech job. Then it was 1:1s and backstabbing all the sudden you could get someone fired. Hilarious, a few years prior if you comp…

i appreciate this kind of funny commentary but on the flip side, compare the top software list in 2026 - facebook, instagram, tiktok, gmail, youtube, chatgpt, ios camera, google docs, office on ios, android and windows - and two of those were created during 2010-2016, music.ly (tiktok) and instagram. perhaps the environment you describe is really good at creating social media phenomena. i don't know if i'd call it "innovation" but i'm not that judgemental. nonetheless most of the reason things were "good" in 2010-2016 is that the period contains most of the growth of iphone and android adoption (the inflection was in 2013). you are looking at cultural stuff that could be the exact opposite - it could be heavily burdened with management, Apple and Microsoft and their little ecosystem of partners certainly were - and still find success. so another takeaway is, none of that stuff really matters now does it?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#322

Post by gtowey » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #142

hibikir wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a lot of "proven" talent with a huge price tag is also no good, really achieved what they did elsewhere due to sheer luck/help from a product that couldn't go wrong, and will drag you into a hole with their comp. I have seen this over and over again: Big pedigree, top of the line personality, zero results. Everyone thinks they are hiring the star, not the fraudster, or just the lucky one. That's how we end up wit…

> really achieved what they did elsewhere due to sheer luck/help This world view is not falsifiable. Regardless of success you can say it was luck. But I just don’t understand this. In my work we are constantly giving people chances to take on more responsibility, and often they don’t want to, or it doesn’t work out. Why would you expect that you could drop them in as CEO? Are CEOs always the cause of success or fail…

> In my work we are constantly giving people chances to take on more responsibility,

In my experience, this means one of two things:

You're asking people who already have too much to do, to add even more to their plate.

Or

You're throwing the projects which are doomed to failure and nobody else will touch at them.

In basically every job I've ever had this has been the case. There is nothing like being given a shit sandwich and being told it's delicious ice cream.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#323

Post by mikert89 » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #296

mikert89 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no its not like that, these people get plopped into positions of power, and alot of time theres no good way to assess their performance

There are plenty of good ways to assess performance of CEO. However the important ones can only be run 10-20 years from now and so they are not helpful.

Right it’s like venture investing c very hard to evaluate short term

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#324

Post by cindyllm » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 4:59 PM UTC

reinitctxoffset wrote: post #292

bob1029 wrote: post #234

I have learned that the purpose of a CEO in many (most?) companies is not to actually run the company. Their purpose is to be the human delegate that represents the corporate entity. They are empowered to act on behalf of the entire organization. This is important because a corporation of many individuals generally cannot act as one. You can sometimes get close with really, really good teamwork, but that's still not…

Claude is gaff-immune in 187 languages, never dips it's pen in the company ink, and can remember every calibrated nuance of guidance at every earnings call ever. It can impartially judge senior staff, provide updates to the board at any time, and personally interact with every customer. CEO seems like a great job for AI.

[dead]

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#325

Post by jamwil » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 5:03 PM UTC

pixelatedindex wrote: post #263

zamadatix wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these other teams ever involve the CEO for key activities? E.g. sales has a major client that wants top level visibility to sign the contract on the big deal? I was in sales many years and anything from letters of commitment to flyouts with the CEO was always a big factor in the large deals - it gave a sense of "we have full assurance they are focused on this" to the customer and was very helpful. I'm not sur…

Not at my workplace, the highest as far as I know is two levels below the CEO, usually a VP of some kind.

It’s a function of relative scale. If you’re a Fortune 100 CEO there is still a point where you would quarterback a sale, but that would be like… a $10 billion+ contract with the federal government.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#326

Post by KoolKat23 » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #249

KoolKat23 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't drop everyone in that position but there is a significant number that still could do it. It is not 100% more like 50%/60% luck.

Does execution, management, marketing and hiring not matter? The best product or opportunity wins and it’s just whose along for the ride?

I hate this new cult of personality thing many are trying to cultivate.

But to that point most of the time, poor performance is attributed to "the market" and strong performance is attributed to "leadership". There is some clear cognitive dissonance going on.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#327

Post by hackable_sand » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #210

cyclopeanutopia wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, sounds very off putting, just like "resources" in "human resources". I get that this is normalized in all the corporations, but one still can choose to use terms that don't reduce people to "value produced".

This is unusually reactive response to normal language.

"Talented" is normal "Talent" is abusive

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#328

Post by jack_h » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

aleksandrm wrote: post #310

darth_avocado wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when the corporations do something illegal why doesn’t this conduit go to jail or pay out of pocket for misconduct? Or is the said conduit only in play for all the convenient aspects of the job like firing people while taking millions in bonuses?

That's why Citizens United is a sham. Corporations are NOT people. If they were, they would see more consequences. But no one ever does.

That's not what CU held. The idea that corporations have legal personhood with some degree of rights is much, much older than Citizens United.

Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that created Hillary: The Movie which was critical of Hillary Clinton. They wanted to distribute it shortly before the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using general funds for electioneering or speech that advocates for the election or defeat of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election.

The Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from stopping an incorporated association from independently spending its own money for political advocacy of a candidate. To put it another way, if I can spend my money to advocate for or against a candidate, why can I not get together with some friends to pool our money and incorporate to do the same? If this had gone the other way would you be okay with a corporation being forbidden from releasing a video critical of Trump shortly before the 2024 election?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#329

Post by groundzeros2015 » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

KoolKat23 wrote: post #326

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does execution, management, marketing and hiring not matter? The best product or opportunity wins and it’s just whose along for the ride?

I hate this new cult of personality thing many are trying to cultivate. But to that point most of the time, poor performance is attributed to "the market" and strong performance is attributed to "leadership". There is some clear cognitive dissonance going on.

So you don’t believe execution on these points makes a difference?

Bring it more local. Does how you manage your household or work matter? Where does scaling that up break?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#330

Post by xboxnolifes » Wed, Jul 22, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

jack_h wrote: post #328

aleksandrm wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why Citizens United is a sham. Corporations are NOT people. If they were, they would see more consequences. But no one ever does.

That's not what CU held. The idea that corporations have legal personhood with some degree of rights is much, much older than Citizens United. Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that created Hillary: The Movie which was critical of Hillary Clinton. They wanted to distribute it shortly before the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using general funds for electionee…

Nobody wants to be the first one who cant pool large sums of money to influence politics, but, yes, im okay with not being allowed to spend millions of dollars to influence our politics. Our society has too much wealth inequality for that to be a good idea.