No, not exaggerating, she codes, she sketches, she does a ton of stuff that should be done by people who specialise in it.
How about I prove you wrong in such an embarrassing way that you will have to eat your words? I have that account because at some point I bought Rogers Internet service, and email was part of what I was buying in the package. Eventually Rogers outsourced their email to Yahoo!, so I have an email account that is paid for and that I never imagined would be handled by Yahoo! I am actually a paying customer, you dumb shit.
Marissa Mayer is not a good CEO, she maybe was a useful engineer at Google, but she is a horrendous CEO at Yahoo! When Yahoo! outbid FB by a few hundred million to buy Tumblr it was clear, there is no plan. But there was no plan from the beginning.
I'll explain. You come to a new company as a CEO, WHAT DO YOU DO? What do you do first? What would YOU do? You know what I would do (as a CEO)? I would immediately run an inventory of what I have in the company, what do I have to work with, who makes money in the company, who does not make money, what investments are out there, what products, services, people, holdings, cash is out there.
I would want a recount and fast.
Then, as a new CEO I would definitely concentrate on those parts of the company that actually make money because those parts have already done the HARD work of figuring out how this company makes money right now.
Mayer didn't pay attention to the content generating part of Yahoo!, which is the part that actually earns them revenues at all, she didn't give a shit that there is a part of the company that brings in over a billion dollars a year. A BILLION dollars a year and she didn't care to figure out how that's done and how to boost it before doing anything else that TAKES money, any new investments can only be done once you understand your cashflow and you know that you can actually withstand the spending that goes into the investment.
Marissa Mayer was not hired as an engineer to build products, she was hired as a CEO, as a director to direct, to create strategy for the company. Yes, that means coming up with product ideas as well, no, it does not mean coding (which is what she ended up doing herself in many cases), that's a waste of time for her. She should be looking at markets and clients and making sure that her current accounts don't fall off the face of the earth, instead she didn't pay any attention to her advertising income (she stood up her largest clients), her content generating income (didn't even notice them apparently).
The only saving grace for Yahoo! was their Alibaba 1Billion USD investment that brought them money and investors, who used Yahoo! to invest into Alibaba indirectly.
As to products, what products? The fucking piece of shit Yahoo! account that I have (from old days) is horrible on Firefox under Ubuntu 11.04 that I still run on my laptop.
I'm afraid you can't blame or give credit to Obama for that
BS. Of course, I can blame Obama — he could have and should have gotten Iraqi government to agree for us to stay there longer — based on the new developments.
Then, of course, if you are killing suspected terrorists instead of capturing and interrogating them (so that, heaven forbid, no new prisoners appear in Guantanamo), you might not even be aware of those new developments until you see some decapitations on YouTube. Either way, the affirmative action wonder is as sorry excuse of a president, as Carter was before him...
More than at any time since the Cold War, scientists are tinkering with viruses to make them more deadly and more able to spread
That Sony Picture Entertainment — like most of Hollywood — are Illiberal-dominated is well-known.
That their systems were so easily and so thoroughly penetrated hints, that the company is mismanaged.
The revealed conversations confirm it. The particular item — which dwells on NYT's Maureen Down (herself an Illiberal icon) as willing to abolish fundamental journalist principles "for the Greater Good" — cites the following conversation-snippet:
- Pascal emailed Dowd, saying “I THOUGHT THE STORY WAS GREAT I HOPE YOUR HAPPY"
- Dowd responded: “I hope you’re happy! Thanks for helping. Let’s do another.”
- Pascal replied, “Your my favorite person so yes”
- Dowd finished the conversation with “you’re mine! you’re amazing”
After Obama was elected, when dissent stopped being patriotic, and the only possible reason underlying any sort of disapproval of government was racism, the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate, or are deliberately ruining their speech — perhaps, to better commiserate with the downtrodden. Fortunately, the "on" slowly disappeared and my question went away...
Ms. Pascal's repeated use of "your" instead of "you're" — even after being gently corrected by her wordsmith correspondent — makes me wonder again. Her use of ALL CAPS identifies her as a moron rather firmly in my book — any sort of stupid Sony does, while she remains at the helm, will not surprise me one bit.
wrote that 22 states permit direct sales of automobiles by Tesla to retail buyers, and of those the majority--14 of them-- voted for President Obama
There is a much fresher data-point for the political leanings of those states — we had elections a month ago. That this non-biased and bi-partisan article — the kind we've come to expect from the Newspaper of Record — chose to use the two year old data instead to illustrate its point, means, the point probably is not supported by the more recent poll...
He suggested that Democratic California, Illinois, and New York "have freer markets in auto retailing than Texas," which is presently Republican.
Is it "freer markets" for everyone, or just for the "green" technology — which got a major government loan (on very sweet terms) to survive and ought to be helped to avoid embarrassing the Democratic administration? Would those Democratic bastions of free markets be as supporting of freedom, if it were about sale of, say, high-capacity toilets?
If you really care for free markets, you'll vote Libertarian — with anybody else you still need a bloody permit to do (or sell) almost anything. Splitting hairs about who is more likely to permit this vs. that is stupid — you have your right to pursue happiness. Selling cars the way you want certainly ought to be covered by that.
Is the small bit of evidence enough to make a case?
No, it is not. To show, which party supports freer markets, one would need to study the market-freedom across different goods and services. Cherry-picking one item, that is so dear to one party's heart, in an industry, that is heavily-regulated by all states (as well as Federal government) is meaningless and reveals nothing but bare partisanship.
Only if some kind of hacker steals it from Sony and makes publicly available. Oh, wait...
Seriously, a free release of the movie is what Mitt Romney just called on Sony to do.
But it does irritate me when people say hari-kari. I get that it's used in English a lot, but the original term is Hara-Kiri.
Actually, the proper term is "seppuku". "Harakiri" is a word used by lower classes...
Winning, as von Clausowitz said, is accomplishing policy
Well, of course, if von Clausowitz said it, it must be truth and nothing but the truth, sure...
Roosevelt and Truman won World War II in less time.
We remained in Germany for decades after that — had we withdrawn in 1955, Germany too could've become a failed state — or be run over by USSR.
It might take another 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. You can't blame that on Obama.
Yes, I can. And I am far from being the only one. And I'm not just talking about RethugliKKKans: even Leon Panetta was rather critical of the President over this.
That article seems to undercut your own argument.
That Illiberals at Slate criticize Bush and free markets is no surprise. That they also criticize the premature withdrawal of American forces — that's noteworthy. It is like having your mama tell you, you have an ugly nose — it must be really ugly...
Bush lost the war.
Bush conquered the entire country, replaced its government, captured its previous leader and handed him over to the new government to be hung by the neck. If that is still "losing", I don't know, what "winning" is...
Did you volunteer? Where did you earn your battle stripes?
Oh, this is so special! So only the military must have a say on matters of foreign policy? Is that your argument — or did you just get carried away with your ad hominem a little?
Yeah... Although I have not gone to movies in the last 7 years or so (since renovating a house with home theater in it), I was thinking of going to see this one just to stick to those assholes ("Guardians of Peace").
I was just deliberating with myself, whether I am, perhaps, falling for a sneaky marketing ploy, but now Sony officially pulled the movie release making the answer easy and the question moot.
What did Bush leave Obama? Anarchy, controlled by armed gangs. Now the strongest force is the Islamic State.
Not true at all. Iraq was moving in the right direction, its various groups learning to talk to rather than fight rivals.
Withdrawal was grossly premature. That it was done not as an honest mistake, but for cynical political considerations ("See? I did not close Guantanamo, but I did get us out of Iraq"), makes it all the more disgusting...
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of his entire army apparatus was wat created the power vacuum that ISIS is now stepping into
No. American forces replaced that — there was no vacuum. The vacuum appeared, when we pulled out.
the Iraqi people thought differently, despite the obvious dangers.
historically it was the Secretary of State that benefitted the most
"The nice thing about Secretaries of State is that there are so many of them to choose from"