Had a President make a big ordeal about leaving "for health reasons". His LinkedIn had him at a new company within a couple months doing the same thing.
Had a CISO leave for "personal" reasons. Talked to him a couple years later and yeah, he was fired.
Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute. Its a fucked up world.
In fairness, I don't think stealing $20 makes the local news these days, unless you live in a town of 300 people. There's a lot of antisocial behavior that goes unreported.
But moreover: I guess there's a presumption, whether fair or not, that well-paid executives overseen by wealthy boards of directors are pre-vetted and act in good faith, whether or not those actions pan out and make money; versus robbery or violent crime that people recoil from, that assumption of good faith isn't there, because it's self-evident to ordinary people that there is no justification for such actions.
I would argue there is a broad difference in ethicality and reason between the bottom and top of the food chain, making these examples less clear cut. If your plan as a low level employee doesn't work out you still get fired and the consequences are far greater.
Got fired because she redeemed two orphaned bottle deposit slips worth 1,30€ (in 2009, so more like 1,50€ in today's money /s). Caused a nation-wide discussion.
> Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute. Its a fucked up world.
I think if we are just looking at the media:
Most journalists wouldn't consider some nobody stealing $20 to be newsworthy in itself.
Most corporate scandals receive extensive media coverage. Even a CEO who was merely incompetent instead of corrupt, is still likely to get some bad press.
Now, you are completely right that the non-media consequences are very different – significant chance of criminal record (although in many jurisdictions, there are mechanisms which first-time offenders on minor charges can use to escape getting one) vs a multi-million dollar severance payment.
The issue with "golden parachutes" – if someone's employment contract creates an entitlement to a severance payment (and in some jurisdictions employment law creates one even if the contract itself doesn't) – then you generally have to pay them unless you terminate for "misconduct" (often even "serious misconduct"). The problem with terminating for "misconduct", is it creates a big incentive for the terminated employee to sue to try to get the severance payment they'd otherwise receive, and the larger the payment, the bigger the motivation – which creates an expensive legal and PR headache. The PR issue is especially acute for senior executives–a junior employee suing over a severance dispute will get a lot less media coverage than a former CEO doing it. So, unless the conduct was extremely egregious, there is a strong incentive for the employer/board to just pay the severance out and make the legal and PR headache go away.
There is also the issue that the next person stepping into their shoes to clean up the mess is being recruited exactly during this time. And if your company gets a reputation for not paying out prenegotiated severances or nitpicking over them, it makes the next candidate that much more wary.
You are comparing robbery with ineptitude. They are two different things. If your ineptitude makes a 20$ loss you may not be fired as well. Billion dollars wasted at corp still is not billion dollars at the exec pockets (that would be theft and he would be facing charges). That the exec pockets millions regardles of the losses incurred by corp, even when it sounds awful to you or to me, is a problem between the corp and the exec.
So you would prefer a media circus and investor scrutiny when your employer's executives are fired for failures or misconduct? This is likely to cause the price of the shares to drop, including any ESPP and stock grants you and your coworkers have vested. Is the satisfaction of seeing an executive dragged through the mud worth losing a chunk of your net worth to you, no matter how much the exec deserves it? I'd rather keep the money, personally.
Yes, I’d prefer that investors know that the new executive is not going to continue the same crap and same level of poor judgement. Want them to know the replacement is looking to do more than wear a golden parachute.
Imagine if investors actually thought the personnel change was a positive one…
> Is the satisfaction of seeing an executive dragged through the mud worth losing a chunk of your net worth to you, no matter how much the exec deserves it?
Yes. There is far too little truth and justice in this world, most especially for corporate executives.
> I'd rather keep the money, personally.
Of course, me too buddy, me too. But some things are more important, don't you think? It would be a much much better world if the wealthy and powerful had to think carefully before acting. Think carefully before that action of misconduct. Bear the responsibility for their actions. Be afraid of the consequences.
And on the flip-side, if it's an exec at another company getting tarred and feathered by the media for their incompetence, it means they probably won't end up at my company in six months' time and do the same thing.
> Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute.
Getting pushed out of a position is very career damaging at the executive level. Those golden parachutes are pretty rare, too. Most of the executives I know from companies you haven't heard of (and some that you maybe have) who were pushed out took a huge hit to their careers after that. The best play is to start calling up executive recruiters and try to get any job as soon as possible once the writing is on the wall that you're being fired.
And come on, stealing $20 doesn't register these days.
> And come on, stealing $20 doesn't register these days
and come on, you know exactly what is meant here. An individual steals something, they get punished. Executives of the largest banks create a scheme that ultimately crashes the world economy and nobody goes to jail. Quibbling on the example's use of $20 is just strange
No one that does this with any regularity or seriousness uses an Apple Watch, they go with Garmin or one of the real fitness watches that can claim battery life in weeks and even months. My Fenix 8 charges once every 26-29 days. I left Apple Watch and never looked back. It's just an inferior product in every possible way.
Guess it depends. I do trail races (usually 25k and 20-milers) and marathons regularly, and Apple Watch has worked just fine for me and has a lot of other features that I use regularly that are largely not available on Garmin. I also prefer the map app I use on my Apple Watch compared to what my partner uses on his Garmin.
> Psychosis as a diagnosis is a serious condition. there's an implication that there's 'harm'
I just watched a company fire an entire department of people under the sincere belief a chatbot run by a middle manager could save them 10 million a year. This failed miserably and they now need to hire or re-hire people.
There is a tremendous amount of harm happening. Psychosis is a perfect term for what is happening.
it absolutely is not. when we think of harm in a diagnosis of psychotic disorders, we're talking about things like getting shot to death by the police, running out onto the highway, etc. it is not callously making a lot of people have to jobhunt
which isn't to say that layoffs don't suck (I was impacted by one very recently) but it's not psychosis that causes that to happen, it's greed and short-term shareholder-fixated thinking. that should be named instead of a mental illness that people suffer from
I agree that calling all this "psychosis" is motivated primarily by a desire to make the person in question look or sound crazy, and is plainly irresponsible on that front.
chatbots being able to evoke real manic episodes in otherwise healthy people is basically true, though - folie a deux doesn't require both participants to have some disorder, and the AI is packing all of them (and the harm is real, there has been something like 30 MDS cases already)
of course, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were case studies of this. but it's far from the usage leveraged in this article or by most, really, and that's somewhat unfortunate
I didn't realize how addicted some orgs were to VMWare until Broadcom bought them and I witnessed zero people migrate to alternatives. It's been one of the single biggest shocks to me in my career. Watching them get squeezed openly and ruthlessly and just accepting it. I've only ever seen Microsoft pull that off before.
I guess that means that VMWare are very skilled in calculating exactly how much they can hike the price / squeeze. Same with oracle, and all the other vendors that play this game.
It kind of makes sense, if you're using VMWare, your choice is to pay a ridiculous but fixed/certain sum, or embark on a risky migration project that probably involves hiring a bunch of people, could take longer than expected, might fail, etc.
VMware Workstation has historically been the most "it just works" option if one needed solid USB passthrough support. I've bought my own license for about 15 years because of that. Obviously I won't be doing that anymore because I refuse to subscribe instead of buying a permanent license.
I've been out of the infrastructure engineering space for a long time, but when that was still my career, vSphere was extremely reliable and easy to manage. When I've poked my head back in during pen tests since then, it's seemed like that was still the case.
Feels like Broadcom wants to use the Microsoft/Oracle/Cisco business model. They'll probably get away with it (at least for awhile) in the enterprise space, but they seem to have reached the same conclusion as me - Workstation and Fusion don't have enough exclusive aspects to be make the consumer market worth pursuing.
They tend to be large complex enterprises outside tech. They don’t have the people (from the cto/cio down) to execute a migration well. They tend to have a very poor to mixed history with other tech migrations, and the risk here would be even higher.
I’m not sure that it’s addiction, it’s just not feasible for most large organizations to pivot from a core solution like VMware without years involved. Every company I know of is formulating an exit plan away from VMware. They just have to do it in a way that offers the least amount of risk and in stages.
Some software companies sort of stumble into treating their customers as hostages while others make an art form of it. Computer Associates, which is part of Broadcom now, has been doing that for decades.
I hope they retire Optimus Prime the way Baseball teams retire players numbers. Peter Cullen is an act that can't be followed and any attempt to do so will sully the memory.
A number of other actors have already voiced Optimus in Transformers media, with varying quality. Jake Foushee, who has appeared in a few recent productions, does a competent impression of Cullen's performance.
The neat thing about characters is they can outlive the actors who play them. Retiring Optimus would be like retiring Bugs Bunny after the death of Mel Blanc.
My dad passed in 2020 from pancreatic cancer. He'd been to the doctor several times complaining about issues and all they would do is send him home with laxatives. Eventually it got bad enough my mom ran him to the ER when they found the cancer which had progressed into its final stages already. He was dead less than a month later.
Similar story with a guy I worked with. He went home sick one day. A few days later our boss told us he was sick and had pancreatic cancer. He came into the office to say goodbye to us a few weeks later and then died about 10 days after that.
FWIW it's commonly the case with cancers of abdominal organs: stomach, pancreas, liver, kidney, etc. These cancers are frequently not diagnosed until at an advanced stage. Symptoms tend to be nonspecific, overlap with ubiquitous conditions like constipation, gastritis.
A goal of research is improving early detection of these cancers but it's an uphill battle. It's difficult to increase providers' "index of suspicion" of seemingly "minor" complaints.
That’s a generalization, pancreatic cancer is often extremely lethal, depending on the type and case the survival rate can be as or more grim than glioma. Bowel and urinary cancers including kidney cancer are often very treatable and survivable when discovered due to symptoms. I don’t think it’s helpful to group all abdominal cancers as being uniquely or especially bad or late discovered. Likewise for the particularly aggressive or advanced cancers these types of announcements and trials rarely translate to major changes in prognosis. More typical if there is any positive result it looks like additional weeks or at best months of aggressive treatments rather than significant ”cure” rates.
It can be disappointing to see that even a successful drug, like this one, is "only" extending life expectancy from 6.7 months to 13.2. But this is what the first steps towards a cure look like.
Childhood leukemia used to be overwhelmingly fatal, and early chemotherapy trials also only managed a couple months of remission. Researchers were even criticized for subjecting patients to harsh side effects to no apparent benefit. But thanks to that research, most patients are now cured; per capita death rates from childhood leukemia are down 14x from the 1950s, mostly driven by improved treatment.
Daraxonrasib is an incredible invention on a technical level, and a meaningful step forwards in the treatment of many cancers. We'll need a couple more equally incredible inventions to be able to cure pancreatic cancer.
Moderna is testing an mRNA vaccine that might be useful against bladder and kidney cancers. Hopefully the same technology can be applied to pancreatic and liver cancers. Fingers crossed.
mRNA vaccines are being studied for pancreatic cancer. To quote a post I wrote in April:
> First, the personalized mRNA vaccine autogene cevumeran, developed by BioNTech and Genentech, just reported 6-year follow-up results from their Phase 1 clinical trial. 16 patients were treated, 8 were responders (showed signs of immune reaction to vaccine), 8 were non-responders.
> 7/8 responders (87.5%) survived 6 years after surgery, 2/8 nonresponders survived (25%).
> The most important result in this small trial is that vaccine response is strongly correlated with better outcomes. But for context, the trial was restricted to patients with operable pancreatic cancer. Patients diagnosed with stage 1 or 2 pancreatic cancer have a 5-year survival rate of 12%. Patients who get their pancreatic cancer surgically removed have a 5-year post-surgery survival rate of 20%. This makes the overall 6-year post-surgery survival rate of 56% among the 16 trial patients pretty impressive. Keep in mind that the trial patients may have been healthier than average for other reasons, and small n is small n, so we shouldn't be too hasty until we see Phase 2 and 3 data.
We are able to early detect these cancers right now with routine targeted imaging. Perhaps we should be working to solve or improve on the drawbacks associated with doing this, some of which are:
CT scans emit ionizing radiation.
MRI contrast can buildup and be retained in the body over repeated administrations.
The scans can produce false positives, surface benign abnormalities which result in a wild goose chase, cause severe patient anxiety and healthcare burden, and result in over-treatment.
And of course doing this on a whole population level is not cost or time effective.
If you look at what practitioners and informed epidemiologists are saying the incidentaloma problem for any type of screening is huge and underestimated with no clear solution. It’s not only about finding and invasively testing benign masses, which can cause actual serious health problems (the associated anxiety and stress alone can actually kill, not to mention the cost and painful or damaging biopsies). But many true positive cancerous or malignant conditions can progress so slowly relative to the patient’s overall health that they do not shorten the patient’s life and/or the treatment may be worse than the “disease” that was detected. Hence why so many types of screenings that actually work can do positive harm for certain populations.
And once you find something with a screening you can’t unfind it. The patient or at least their doctor now has that knowledge and has to live with it and actively decide what to do about it.
Absolutely terrible. As human beings, we should be prioritizing solving these kinds of problems. I don't think we need to live forever, but a graceful ending later in life remains an objective we haven't fully realized for everyone.
We do. There’s something like half a billion dollars spent on pancreatic cancer research annually in the United States alone. It’s a giant money pit and that’s created an enormous body of research, increased understanding of the biology of the cancer and just how insidious it is, and funded the careers of thousands of scientists, technicians, academics and administrators, but very little of all this translates into better treatment outcomes. There’s no evidence than just pouring more money into cancer research is going to give us a miracle cure. There are competing priorities starved for funding to that we know can use meaningful help. Not incidentally some of those include financial aid, medical care and quality of life assistance for the actual patients and their families, as well as prevention.
> There’s no evidence than just pouring more money into cancer research is going to give us a miracle cure.
The HPV vaccine will almost entirely wipe out cervical cancer: not by curing it, but preventing it entirely. Not sure if that meets your “miracle” standard, but it’s a totally unreasonable standard to apply to scientific research. By definition, a miracle is something that is not physically possible.
Research seems expensive, yes. You have to work in every possible direction, fumbling in the dark metaphorically, because you don’t know the answers yet. It’s a lot messier than giving a hungry person a meal. But hundreds of years of research have made that meal way more abundant and less expensive…
In the grand scope of the country, we spend quite small amounts on research. The U.S. GDP generates half a billion dollars in less than 10 minutes, for example. It’s less than what we spend on takeout coffee.
> The HPV vaccine will almost entirely wipe out cervical cancer: not by curing it, but preventing it entirely.
That only underlines my point. The HPV vaccine was in not really a product of cancer research, in terms of the cancer itself. It’s purely a multivalent viral vaccine with the munificent effect of preventing several cancers and nasty genital warts as an additional motivator. It has saved many thousands of lives that would have been lost with the best available cancer treatments and avoided their costly and excruciating effects.
It’s too early to write off cervical cancer, besides HPV-negative ones, there are evolving strains not covered and a huge pool of viral reserves worldwide and among the unvaccinated in the USA. A universal mandate won’t happen and coverage isn’t high enough to eradicate it.
Prevention is important for almost all cancers. There will likely be other vaccines in the future targeting carcinogenic infections but most cancers don’t have a simple infectious cause. Cancer is a family of nasty diseases that has time and again defied all pronouncements of impending universal cures.
Had a CISO leave for "personal" reasons. Talked to him a couple years later and yeah, he was fired.
Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute. Its a fucked up world.
reply