> Lot of talented folks in Seattle and beyond who'll be looking for new gigs.
Which you took issue with and suggested the failure was counter evidence. That was pretty clearly about the technical team that was just let go, so that idea doesn't hold much water.
Beyond that, the mere existence of failure doesn't mean that the plan wasn't reasonable; you need a lot more data to determine if the mgmt team was functioning well. I have no opinion on the particulars here because I don't know the details. But the contention that the fact of failure alone is clear indication is a bit silly, which is what I was pointing out.
I had addressed the wider point I thought, apologies if not clear enough. The mere existence of a failure, without other data, simply isn't good evidence for anything you have claimed, and any assertion that "it's usually X" needs pretty serious support to be taken seriously. It's a complicated area, and reducing it too much leads to oversimplification at best.
> Lot of talented folks in Seattle and beyond who'll be looking for new gigs.
Which you took issue with and suggested the failure was counter evidence. That was pretty clearly about the technical team that was just let go, so that idea doesn't hold much water.
Beyond that, the mere existence of failure doesn't mean that the plan wasn't reasonable; you need a lot more data to determine if the mgmt team was functioning well. I have no opinion on the particulars here because I don't know the details. But the contention that the fact of failure alone is clear indication is a bit silly, which is what I was pointing out.