>put his ass on the line

Please don't do this. There are many people who put their ass on the line. He is not one of them. He risked almost nothing from a human perspective.

▲

semiquaver 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Clearly his ass was on the line based on the fact that he was fired and is now likely unemployable.

	▲	pigbearpig 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		He was fired 5 years after the zoom layoffs. That information is from the linked article.
	▲	happytoexplain 26 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If he's fine, that's not "his ass". Otherwise, do you mean "unemployable as a CEO"? If yes, that's irrelevant. If no, why do you think that? You said "clearly", but it's clearly not clear (assuming you've made it to this point in the decision tree).

▲

xyzelement an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find it off-putting that you and another poster think you are in position to evaluate someone else's sacrifice. I pressume that if you had put years and lots of money towards something - you would consider that significant "on a human level".

▲

gopher_space 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I haven't worked for an individual with a failure state anyone would recognize since the mid-90s. There's no sacrifice involved in being addicted to a lifestyle that pays well even if you suck.

▲

bluefirebrand an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I pressume that if you had put years and lots of money towards something - you would consider that significant "on a human level".

If you are wealthy enough to gamble a bunch of money and a couple of years and still have more money than most people left over if it fails, then no. I don't view that as making any kind of significant sacrifice at all

Seriously. If your "worst case scenario" is still "I could retire comfortably tomorrow without any hardship" then I genuinely feel no sympathy for you if your ventures fail.

	▲	simoncion 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Seriously. If your "worst case scenario" is still "I could retire comfortably tomorrow without any hardship"... Yeah. A long while back, I was talking to the guy who ran a Subway-branded sandwich shop that I frequented, and had been running it for quite a long while. He was complaining to me how absolutely terribly the business was doing... how he'd lost something like 150K last year and this year was shaping up to be at least as bad. And, like, on the one hand that's a quite a lot of money for an individual to lose. On the other hand I -at the time- would have been immediately tossed out on the street if I lost even a quarter of that amount in a year. Him? He kept the business open, bleeding money for a couple more years before he shut it down to go do something else. He was unhappy about the change in plans, but very clearly not financially threatened by the losses over the previous years. A monetary loss that would ruin one person might not even be worth bothering to account for to another. The surrounding context always matters.

▲

happytoexplain an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is an oversimplification. I didn't make the implication you are accusing me of. Tangentially, please do not presume my feelings based on invented scenarios - it's hostile.

Regardless - yes, my response should be off-putting. The situation we are in is "off-putting", to understate it.

▲

__MatrixMan__ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That is, unless there's a contingent out there considering hurting him for this. Probably not justified in this case, but maybe we'd get better leadership if it were a tad more common.