The Real Story of Pixar • Hacker News Board

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#71

Post by CharlesW » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

goto11 wrote: post #69

CharlesW wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs… If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-michelson/one-lesson-from-steve-job_b_1100331.html

So you are saying Smith didn't know what he was talking about?

No, I was responding to the parent comment which implied that "standing up to Jobs" was something few people did. Having 2nd-hand knowledge of several incidents, my impression is that it was not uncommon and sometimes necessary.

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#72

Post by CharlesW » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

monkeydreams wrote: post #63

CharlesW wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs… If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-michelson/one-lesson-from-steve-job_b_1100331.html

> If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. So he was a bully who only targeted those people who wouldn't fight back?

He was a bully who expected you to fight back, because if you didn't, it meant that you either didn't know what you were talking about, didn't have the courage of your convictions, or both.

To be clear, I don't idolize Jobs and am not defending toxic behavior by a broken person who either thought the ends justified the means, or (more likely) who didn't think about it at all.

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#73

Post by b112 » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:39 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #70

b112 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, using the term liable was a mistake. I meant "responsible". I also should have put my last sentence in its own paragraph. I stand by this, and consider... You are a CFO of a subsidiary. You have certain legal requirements. Only certain people may speak for your org, be it CxO level, or the board. If you discover a board member speaking as if it has CxO level authority, or worse, some non-board, or CxO actor runn…

What value are you hoping to contribute to this discussion? You are speaking in generalities and platitudes and making so many assumptions it’s hard to respond. Your description of the corporate subsidiary relationship is still incorrect. This isn’t logic, it’s history. If you’re interested in commenting on it, why not read something about the actual lawsuit? In this case, specific people were caught making certain a…

You are trying to assert the studios were good studios. Yet, you provide no proof that the board, and CxO ezecs were completely unaware of (as you claim) parent corps making back room deals.

Look, many people in this thread have expressed that you seem to be over protective of these studios you worked for. I get that you did not feel ill treated when there, but you were ... clearly your salary was artificially, and illegally depressed.

You just don't have a leg to stand on here, IMO.

I'm not sure why you seem so put out by this. You aren't your employer, and being a victim doesn't paint you in a bad light.

edit: If I am missing something here, please lay out what it is.

But do note that by the mere fact your salary was repressed, you worked for a bad corp. I will find it very, very difficult to get past this point, and all the hand waving in the world will likely not help here.

It may be that there is no value in us discussing, our positions may be too entrenched.

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#74

Post by goto11 » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 8:50 AM UTC

CharlesW wrote: post #72

monkeydreams wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. So he was a bully who only targeted those people who wouldn't fight back?

He was a bully who expected you to fight back, because if you didn't, it meant that you either didn't know what you were talking about, didn't have the courage of your convictions, or both. To be clear, I don't idolize Jobs and am not defending toxic behavior by a broken person who either thought the ends justified the means, or (more likely) who didn't think about it at all.

How on earth is "fighting back" supposed to be correlated with "know what you were talking about"? All experience shows these are not correlated whatsoever. I have certainly met many people who didn't know what they were talking about but nevertheless was very combative about it. And conversely people who was very smart but (perhaps naively) thought ideas would win on merit, not on who shout the loudest, and therefore didn't "fight".

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#75

Post by dahart » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #73

dahart wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value are you hoping to contribute to this discussion? You are speaking in generalities and platitudes and making so many assumptions it’s hard to respond. Your description of the corporate subsidiary relationship is still incorrect. This isn’t logic, it’s history. If you’re interested in commenting on it, why not read something about the actual lawsuit? In this case, specific people were caught making certain a…

You are trying to assert the studios were good studios. Yet, you provide no proof that the board, and CxO ezecs were completely unaware of (as you claim) parent corps making back room deals. Look, many people in this thread have expressed that you seem to be over protective of these studios you worked for. I get that you did not feel ill treated when there, but you were ... clearly your salary was artificially, and i…

Hahaha this is cracking me up. Seriously. Wow. You are missing literally everything. The reason there’s no value in discussing this is that you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do and are now attacking me. You made it crystal clear you don’t understand corporate subsidiaries. You have no idea what studio I’m referring to or what it’s relationship to the parent corp was, or more importantly what it’s relationship to the named defendants in the suit was, and you don’t seem to care about these details or any actual facts at all. You could have asked nicely, but instead you’re doubling down on incorrect assumptions and trying to insult me. Why should I provide more facts to you when you’re willfully ignoring all the facts I’ve given so far? What is really bothering you? I get the feeling it has nothing to do with boards or execs or subsidiaries.

You aren’t entitled to any proof of anything here, and you’ve misunderstood and misrepresented at least some of what I wrote above. I shared my experience and feeling about Cartoon Brew’s articles versus my perspective of what happened as a member of the class. What is your experience in the matter? Were you involved? I hope you keep your healthy skepticism turned on while you read their articles. My position is based on personal experience in the matter, your stated position so far based on pure speculation. You don’t know what my salary was, nor whether it was repressed. Saying you’re entrenched only proves to me you’ve jumped to a conclusion and aren’t interested in the truth. I’m really curious why you’re still responding, but I could not care less what your bystander opinion is, unless you have something relevant to say that is based on reality.