Scraped my car tire rim on a curb the other day and mashing Ctrl + Z in my brain for minutes afterwards :(
Scraped my car tire rim on a curb the other day and mashing Ctrl + Z in my brain for minutes afterwards :(
that’s what the gun is for, the bullets can outrun anyone, even an unarmed child
Sorry to hear that. Can I interest you in some Taylor Swift gossip or the latest news story about what Elon pooped out of his mouth this morning?
Lately it seems like many Taylor Swift fans would slit someone’s throat for the opportunity to look at a pan that she might have touched one time
Twitter is a software, he’s been saying stupid stuff about how it works for the last year+
Solely? No. But if the airbag, seatbelt, or self-driving autopilot feature that they created contributed to someone’s death, they are partially responsible and should face consequences or punishments. Especially if they market it as a safe feature.
Both can be nuts
Steve Jobs is the exception. I’m just trying to answer the original question about why this happens so often. I’m not trying to argue about the best way to run a company. But if you’re equating every founder with Steve Jobs then we’re having a completely different conversation.
Apple is now the most valuable company on earth, so I think you’re not making the point you think you’re making. Publicly traded companies act only based on what increases the value of their shares the most. If the current CEO isn’t seen as the most profitable CEO for the shareholders, they will eventually be replaced, even if they founded the company. That is a risk you knowingly take when taking your company public. Most founders choose the money that comes with an IPO, knowing they’ll eventually get the boot.
Because it requires a completely different skill set to run a startup with only yourself and 50 employees to worry about vs a multi-billion dollar, publicly traded company. People that are good at one of those often aren’t good at the other, so when their company changes from the former to the latter, they get the boot for someone better at running the new version of the company.
Wikipedia as an organization does this?? News to me so I’d love a source on that. I would not be surprised if people that work at Wikipedia donate to charitable causes or speak out about social issues, but that’s a very different thing called free speech
The first one that Google literally highlights, if you click it, it says that verbal contracts are binding but purchases of goods over $500 is an exception.
If you’re not talking about the first search result, maybe link to an actual source instead of the search results.
Cobain is risky, odds are he just peaces out again 😞
By making the free version worse, aka making the paid version more valuable
In a capitalist society you speak with your money. It’s the only language businesses speak. If you’re not giving a company any money they’re not going to cater their product to you, plain and simple.
That’s the difference, Android users have a choice in what phone they buy. Apple users get the new iPhone or the old iPhone, so when bad decisions are made it sucks worse.
These are people that literally never grew up.
It’s the 8 year old mentality of ‘math is hard and confusing, I would rather spend the day living in my imaginary world’
What we are seeing now is the temper tantrum that happens when someone challenges them to leave their comfort zone.
I think it’s an honest question, which is a respectful thing to ask if you don’t know. I myself haven’t been sure, because I’ve heard it pronounced multiple different ways even by news pundits.