261–270 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you’re earning sky high base comp + stock + benefits at these places you’re not working class. You are incredibly out of touch.
Not if you have a visa to worry about. Doesn’t matter how much money you have then. You need another job in 30 days or you and your entire family are at risk.
I simply don’t see what good this CEO has done. He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. Destroyed customer trust in Google products. Done nothing to fix googles reputation for terrible customer service. Led Google to third place in cloud computing. AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. Why is this guy CEO?
How much influence/impact does a CEO at such a large company have tho? Is it rly his fault?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “While Firing Thousands” While correcting for the mistake of inflated bloat from recruiting? Industry wide pattern is emerging useless hires.
If it were simply a correction for the recent hiring spree, then people with 10+ years of tenure on production-critical teams would not have been let go.
This is freeing up resources for stuff like this stock grant.
I'd have fired harder and double cleaned the house
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I was going by this chart, looks like it may be wrong: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/net-...
The macrotrends list of net income by year below the charts is correct. The trailing 12 month chart at the top you may have been looking at is not a chart of annual net income.
I simply don’t see what good this CEO has done. He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. Destroyed customer trust in Google products. Done nothing to fix googles reputation for terrible customer service. Led Google to third place in cloud computing. AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. Why is this guy CEO?
Sundar became CEO at a time when Google needed a leader who could build consensus across different product areas. Sundar was the right person for this role. Unfortunately Sundar is also relatively weak at setting a bold vision to ensure the company continues to grow and innovate, as Larry had done. So under Sundar the company has slowly shifted from being innovative to being very risk averse, incentivising not making…
Was he? What is the evidence that he succeeded? Or even had more positive influence than random decisions?
Does google have consensus over what it’s doing? Or is Sundar specifically a “safe,” milquetoast CEO chosen to not show up previous CEOs. I don’t know Sundar, but it seems he was picked because google leadership assumed supremacy and thought that they just needed a steady hand to coast for a few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CEO fucked up, get rid of him/her. Why'd you hire so many people if you don't need it? Sounds like C-suite made the wrong call, in that case.
Getting rid of someone because of a fuck up is amateur leadership (or politics to appease the mob). The relevant question is whether or not a decision was appropriate, given the information and parameters at the time of making the decision. No one is perfect.
The upper management at Google are so lucky that the company is filled with timid people who are averse to change and didn't unionize. Now they can safely siphon the profits for another several years until they inevitably drive the company into the ground when the ad revenue dries up, and they move to similar positions at other places with healthy revenue streams. And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this becau…
You don’t have the full picture. You’re missing a lot of data > And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this because they think they caught God by the ankles with their 150k/year salary That’s closer to their intern salaries. Total comp is more like double or more Much of the rank and file’s total compensation is also in stock Add to that if you wanted to, you can do the minimum and just coast. No one is going to…