sometimes you bring on a ceo just to get some controversial thing done. they can eat the blame and then leave
They called it an Axe Man, in my time. I’ve been at two companies hit with them, and I follow them AND the CEO who stepped down (once a reverted permanent one and the other a long-term leave) to see which companies are fucked next.
I’m embarrassed it took me so long to realize this. Somebody explained that to me recently, within the context of a conversation about layoffs. That CEO had no prior CEO experience, was only there for less than a year, and was part of the board of directors. In hindsight it seems so obvious.
It’s what boeing does everytime a plane goes down.
That must be quite a list of ceo’s
So like a corporate sin eater?
You bring in a female CEO to take the fall. The narrative gets to be about her weak leadership.
Ellen Pao wasn’t even CEO for a full year. Reddit clearly put her in charge to take the heat - which they knew would be ample based on her sex alone.
So replacing a woman with a woman, and then bringing back the original woman is what made you think the fall person had to be a woman? Reddit may have done so… but I find it hard to believe this was sex/gender related. Otherwise it would have made more sense to replace the woman with a man, have him take the fall and go back to Whitney so it made her / the company look better long term.
This is moronic and sexist.
History is full of males that were suckered into taking the fall.
Saying that women alone are incompetent to the point of always being suckered into a CEO position to be the fall gal is peak misogynism.
Think things through a little before posting.
What is “the glass cliff”, Alex.
Sorry that stating the existence of this systemic sexism is apparently sexist. Guess I’m sexist?
Yes, you are sexist….against women for sure (your comment proves that) and probably men, also.
How does recognizing systemic sexism, AKA issues within our society that unfairly treat either men or women, make me sexist? The “glass cliff” is a well known phenomenon, we’re not just making this up out of nowhere.
I guess if you choose to remain ignorant of such issues, people pointing them out may appear sexist to you. I’m sorry that your world view is so limited by your own self imposed blinders, but please don’t shoot the messenger. Wikipedia is just a few clicks away.
I already explained why in my original comment. It’s apparent that you probably lack reading comprehension.
Re-read it, if that’s an option.
Nah, I’m okay. Have a nice day.
The ol’ Ellen Pao
Ellen Pao was a shit executive and a failure. Has nothing to do with the imaginary “LeTs bRinG iN a wHOmAn tO tAkE dA faLL!!!”
Tacit racism. She is a US citizen of Chinese background. Why have her face on the flag of the Empire of Japan if the subliminal message wasn’t yellow peril?
deleted by creator
And it should be noted, it was shit like “you can’t have a subreddit entirely devoted to encouraging groups you dislike to kill themselves”
Wow, as a gay dude reading the comments here, straight dating sucks, why is it even like that?
Bumble used to be different back in the day. I tried it when it was going down the tubes.
I think part of the problem is that the matching is fairly superficial, so while you know a little about the person, most of the details amount to their face, 1-3 hobbies, and their ass.
The women I matched with that I went out with were awkward and felt forced. In the end, I ended up falling in love with a close guy friend that I had known for years.
If bumble wants success, they should allow for much deeper Q&A, longer response times, a tweaked algorithm that matches people based off hobbies and passions, and an AD section that allows people to privately put in stuff that they like after dark. Info that isn’t shared with their matches, but helps make people match better with people like them.
As for straight dating though, idk. I feel like people should probably be avoiding apps and meeting organically through stuff like biking groups, climbing groups, skiing events, big dance venues, etc. it fosters much more organic connections.
I don’t participate in bar culture that much, but the difference between the gay bars I’ve gone to and the straighter college-y bars feels immense. The former is much more social with a pinch of kink, the latter is where people are getting absolutely blitzed without much dialogue over loud music. It’s an extremely small sample size, but I can’t help but wonder if it’s part of a larger trend when it comes to meeting people and how portions of society meet and date. Perhaps there are bars where single straight men and women meet over 1-2 drinks and talk, but I haven’t seen any so far.
Overall, I think the Internet and cars (decreasing population density and increasing the space between third places) has had a dramatically negative impact on love and friendships in places like the US.
Is the signature feature that women initiate or was that some other app?
Yeah. I used the BFF version for a bit to try and find folks in my area to hang out with. It’s a really horrible app. When someone messages you, you have 24 hours to respond. If you don’t then the two of you get unmatched. I can understand something like unlatching after some time period without responding, but just 24 hours? Ick.
We have shareholders to consider! Now get on with your relationship before we unnecessarily cut you off.
Brought to you by Match, "You’re next Bumble, you think they fucked up Bumble already!? Just you wait!’
This just gave me the (shit post) idea of an app where VC funders can swipe on projects they want to invest in or not
Did that ever…work?
Probably, considering that it was enough to get the company to the point that it could go public. And for the company to lose 54% of its “value” after changing it.
There’s a big problem with the “women message first” gimmick, and it’s that they just don’t.
If they don’t simply let the match expire, you either get a shitty Gif, or something along the lines of “hey.”
Maybe one in ten will actually send a message that genuinely starts a conversation.
I literally saw so many profiles being like “I don’t message first”, like do you even understand what the app you’ve signed up for is?
I always wondered if they realised we actually can’t send the first message.
Well, men CAN message first, as of like 8 months ago.
it would work better if it was "women swipe first’. men can look at and swipe the women who swiped them already. this solves two problems:
- women are not seen by anyone they don’t want to be
- men don’t need to spend hours swiping hundreds of women
please give me 1 million dollars
That’s the premium feature in pretty much every dating app. You get to see who likes you but you have to pay the money to find out if anyone swiped on you at all.
They imply that lots of people swiped on you but you don’t actually know until after you’ve given the money.
So basically your plan is to just remove the con part which I’m all in favor of.
This means men will see many fewer women on the platform in many cases.
it means men would not spend hours on the app, which means nobody would ever do this
Who wants men spending hours on the app and why? Most of these are subscription-based, not ad-supported.
Yes, that’s the idea. They wouldn’t see anyone who hasn’t already liked them.
Which means after the exhaust those few options they won’t use that app again. No app developer will do this.
They’re not “exhausting options”. They’re just only seeing the options that are actually available, rather than an endless stream of those that aren’t.
You get that not seeing more people is the problem for the developer, right?
What?
Maybe it’s you guys, but I never really had this issue.
deleted by creator
