Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

overpaid.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 395 posts

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#361

Post by gtowey »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #347
gtowey wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sa…

So you don’t think people have a skill ceiling in this area?

There surely is at some point.

I'm saying this more from the perspective of an IC though, who is dealing with the next 2-3 levels of management. Perhaps it's a different story in the C-suite, but I'm dubious.

IMO it's more often a problem of training and support. Throwing people into the deep end and standing back while they sink or swim seems like a myopic strategy to me, but maybe that's why I'm not a CEO.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#362

Post by raincom »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #333
raincom wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a business is a two person shop, it is very easy to prove the culpability of a CEO. However, in a large corporation, it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO, as too many people are involved. That's why you see small business owners are easier to prosecute than CEOs of larger corporations.

Thats the excuse given, but it makes no sense. All you do is state "CEOs are culpable for the actions of the campany". Bam, problem solved.

That requires a change in criminal law, with an exception of RICO. However, the DOJ will not use RICO against the elite class, as ex-prosecutors end up working for the same elite through law firms.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#363

Post by raincom »

blitzar wrote: post #312
raincom wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a business is a two person shop, it is very easy to prove the culpability of a CEO. However, in a large corporation, it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO, as too many people are involved. That's why you see small business owners are easier to prosecute than CEOs of larger corporations.

it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO for anything bad it is very easy to prove to the CEO earned the credit for all things good

The issue is who should one prove the culpability to? As long as the board of directors agree that CEO earned the credit for all things good, he/she will get a fat bonus. For culpability, it is the jury/judge, where things are quite strict; otherwise, it is very easy to convict.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#364

Post by sleight42 »

bratao wrote: post #54

I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…

Also look at Marc Benioff who checks stock market has seesawed Salesforce into a low it hasn't seen in 4 years. The man seems to manage to repeatedly pull failure from the jaws of success.

Now look at his earnings.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#365

Post by sleight42 »

morelandjs wrote: post #40

Would love some kind of randomized A-B test where CEOs are replaced with AI and the outcome measured. Would not at all be surprised if it’s far better than the bottom quartile or more. More practically, I think you could give a board of directors access to an LLM that sees all levels of company operations and let them talk to that chatbot as a stand-in for the CEO on a 24/7 basis.

Or replace them with Folger's Crystals? It'd be cheaper than AI.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#366

Post by morkalork »

RajT88 wrote: post #267
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…

That is why the E stands for Executive. COO's run the company. The CEO wines and dines and handles vision and escalations. You have described it to a T. Now, sometimes CEO's run he company. Often not though.

It's also the rolodex they come with. They've got the friend that knows someone on the board of the company you want to talk to so now instead of sales doing a cold outreach your company has a meeting with their CEO directly that no one else would normally be able to get. Neither CEO is that technical, and your technical merits had absolutely no impact on if you got the meeting or not, literally just a who-knows-who game. But yeah sure, an AI will replace that.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#367

Post by danny_codes »

infamouscow wrote: post #334
xboxnolifes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This would mean that all media companies in the US would be prevented from publishing anything that could be perceived as negative about any candidate running for elected office, regardless of factual basis and regardless of if it were satire. A candidate would simply go to any circuit court judge and get an injunction against the media company. If the media company did not comply, the judge would find the officers i…

Except that's not how it was in 2004 before Citizens United. So.. yes, in your made up hypothetical it doesn't look good. But in reality, where we all live, it worked better than the current rules

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#368

Post by jaredklewis »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #330
jack_h wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can I spend money to influence voters?

Say that I hold the political that the US should provide more humanitarian aid to Gaza. If I raise a bunch of money for this cause, can I use that money to make movies about the poor conditions in Gaza? Can I buy a full page in the New York Times with information about the crisis in Gaza? Can I use the money to run ads advocating my position on Gaza? Can I use the money to buy ads that support candidates that share my position on this issue?

This is basically what super PACs do. Of course I don't want it so that you can deliver a bunch of gold bars to a senator in exchange for their vote on a bill, but was illegal before citizens united and remains illegal after.

For me, I don't see how you can reasonably enforce some rule against using "money to influence politics" without also having some central entity that gets to police everyone's political speech, and that scares me.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#369

Post by KoolKat23 »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #329
KoolKat23 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course that matters but many can do this.

I go to plenty of homes and their dishes are perfectly clean.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#370

Post by tesnorindian »

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…

It is plain simple that the board requires a scapegoat.
Post reply on HN