amitamit

I had a problem with the lights on my Tesla - water "leaked in" and I had to get the Tesla service to replace. At considerable $$.

I'd never experienced that before, or heard of others who had experienced it.

I was more interesting in learning about the $3T/year number. Turns out that it is eye-catching but the math here is very dubious.

They have several factors - the primary being their taking a few very specific instances of companies, declaring these companies' manager-employee ratio be the ideal, and then computing how much other companies would save if they had similar manager-employee ratio.

This is just wrong.

By the same argument, given that Apple's retail revenue is $5,500 per sq feet while Target is only $300, we should conclude that Target is wasting retail space and it should save money by shutting down 94% of its locations.

That is of course completely incorrect - these are two very different businesses. The same problem exists with the original analysis.

Not really.

The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. They can say NO to a "serious offer" only if they can claim with confidence that the offer is undervaluing the assets, or if there is another better offer. Neither was true for Twitter.

Good point. Cellular accuracy has improved dramatically since 2015.

The "native" location data that Telcos have is not very precise - think of accuracy of a few city blocks. That is good enough precision for traditional subpoenas, but not for the kind of application the author described.

Also telcos only have data for their customers - this gets them access to competitors' customers.

Sometimes this does happen - VCs and acquirers behaving badly.

It has been my experience that in the vast majority of the cases, the VCs and the acquirers behave honorably, and do the right thing.

This is due to several factors: 1. They are ethical and/or more concerned about their reputation, esp. for future transactions. 2. The decision makers do not personally gain from such poor behavior (the $ flow to the organization, not to them). 3. The decision makers on the acquiring side are concerned about making enemies with others from the acquired companies.

I measured the CO2 levels in one room using several different CO2 monitors - under similar conditions (steady-state with one person in the room, windows partially open) on different days; Aranet readings were the most stable and consistent, while matching the "expected ppm".

I also tested the monitors by exhaling directly on them, and confirming the change in readings.

As several others have pointed out, the primary reason is the concern/fear of legal liability. All the information is already put together for the Hire/NoHire decision, and the entire Interview Team is usually aware (though this may differ depending on the company).

If you are working with a recruiter, it may be useful for you to ask them - as a Hiring Manager, I shared candid feedback with the recruiter so that they could provide better candidates in the future. Alternately, if you connect with someone in the Interview Team, you may be able to get them to give you "off-the-record" feedback.

Please remember to accept all feedback without getting defensive or pushing back, even if you believe the Hiring Team didn't do the right thing. If you want to set the record straight, it is better to do so in a separate conversation.

Agreed!! I have also tried many different CO2 meters (all consumer-grade) and Aranet has been consistently the most accurate among the CO2 meters I have used.

I was at Sun Labs at that time - Ousterhout's group was internally regarded as one of the top groups there. I was in a different group.

My recollection is that the concerns were not around technical merit: a. Tcl and Java were positioned as competitors, b. Sun saw Java as a critical weapon in its fight against Microsoft, c. Java won the internal battle, which led to Tcl/Scriptics spin out.

To be fair, there are at least three distinct groups: 1) Employees being let go 2) Employees continuing 3) Students - current and prospective

Any statement has to balance the message across these three. For example, a statement that's "too negative" about future prospects risks spooking people in #3 - causing further damage to the business, as well as to people in #2.