> I was told once by a proficient pistol shooter that he ignored where the front sight was on the target, and paid attention only to the alignment of the two sights relative to each other. Since he did in fact hit the target,
is the "two sights" here the rear sight which has two posts, or the two sites as in front sight + rear sight?
several pages of reading and then .. an ambiguously worded conclusion.
building the actual application is like 10% of starting a business, and businesses that need applications built are probably only 10% of businesses in general. let's be generous, and say it's 25% each.
i know this is impossible for you to believe.
so in other words, the aspect of 'business' that your particular skill covers is probably about 1-7% of the entire domain.
is that the nasty sour smelling chemical? sort of like sulfur, vinegar, burnt gunpowder, and vodka, mixed together? i used to get a whiff of it at my dad's bench at his workplace.
Acetic acid and Butyric acid. Used for those clear tool handles. [1][2] It gets nastier once you realize you are smelling the odor of vomit with hints of vinegar.
Maybe. To me it had a very "industrial-fish" smell is the best way I can put it. Not fishy like Thai fish oil, but maybe like an ocean oil spill site puréed, baked in the sun and concentrated? I remember it provoked a visceral reaction to not smell it more.
it runs the local contents of ./my-setup-script.sh on the remote server in a way that escapes all the special characters so they don't do unexpected things.
i learned this the hard way, after doing what the coin said, and having to reverse course a couple of times. on minor stuff only, of course. on anything important i'll sleep on it and the answer will usually come to me the next day or two.
don't forget about the irish coffees and overpriced mediocre croissants. or pretending not to be alcoholics at brunch the next morning, with 5 of your closest enablers, slamming bottomless mimosas and bloody marys. do this while talking about work, and how drunk you got last night, and how amazing the benedict is while posting pictures of it to instagram, even though you can barely taste it after waiting 90 minutes in line for the privilege of paying $75 per person not including tip and the foodservice healthcare surcharge.
No they can't. I don't doubt that this has happened before and I'm sure someone can dig up an example or two.
However, what you describe is highly questionable and borderline illegal. It's certainly grounds for a lawsuit by other shareholders (including options holders).
Eh, this is exactly what happened to a friend of mine. The rationale later, was he had been promised X percent, but when the final deal went through, they diluted different pools of company stock to different percentages, and his values went down to 1/10 what he was expecting.
I know I'm missing a lot of info, and its just a second hand example, but it seems in line with grand parent post's idea that for each type of financial tool, there's at least one gotcha you need to be aware of.
Yes, they can. The board has discretion over the allocation of the options pool that will have been set aside as part of each round.
However to issue those to yourself would be like eating your seed stock, since that's the pool that you use for issuing options to new hires, and without that you can't give new employees any equity. For that reason I don't think it's likely.
I think what the grandparent comment is getting at is that you as an employee have little control over the delayed compensation strategy. If you're lucky, you have a honest founder and investors who make sure you're paid for your contribution at deal closing time. If you're not lucky, you have a board/CEO/founder that will take whatever they can get away with (e.g. your value add) and then point to the financial rules/contingencies and say, "Well, we tried to do all we could, but we had to do this to ensure the success of the company. We needed to compensate the administration because it's hard to find such good talent like ourselves. Your still getting something here..." Or some such line. And you end up with some minuscule share at the same time providing critical value to the business.
> Journalists definitely like to hear themselves talk, even when formulating questions while moderating a discussion.
slightly off topic, but with the rise of ubiquitous audio/video and the interview/discussion/panel format, it is infuriating how many hosts just blatantly speak over their guests, over and over and over. it's one of the biggest tells between a professional interviewer and a rank amateur. i can barely make it through my weekly playlist without cringing at half the dialogue.
i completely stopped listening to charlie rose because of this. it's absolutely atrocious. it's not helpful, and makes me anxious when i'm trying to unwind. some guests simply continue speaking, and the entire discussion devolves into little more than a god damn shouting match.
sexism or not, i hope this public assassination at least makes one loudmouth blowhard reconsider his default modus operandi. just let your guests speak! for fuck's sake, it's not that hard.
Charlie Rose has been an absolutely abysmal interviewer his whole career, which is a tragedy considering how good they are at booking great guests. He asks long leading questions, proceeds to answer them himself, and then tacks on an “isn’t that right?” at the end. When the guest inevitably says “that’s not how I think of it, Charlie, let me explain ...”, he then interrupts and repeats his original claim again. Ugh, drives me crazy.
He also kisses up like mad to a few people (Tom Friedman? Yuck.) while stomping all over experts he doesn’t agree with, often because he doesn’t understand their point.
My favorite was when at some point maybe 15 years ago he was interviewing I think Bill Joy, and asked one of his long multi-sentence leading questions. To which the response was ... pause ... “well, duh.”
* * *
Thankfully Terry Gross single-handedly makes up for all the bad interviewers in the world.
Can't agree more with this assessment of Rose. I don't understand how he got or keeps his job.
I wish they'd give that position to Alec Baldwin. His work on "Here's the Thing" has proven him to be an adept interlocutor. While he also has a tendency to talk over his guests it's usually to help enlighten or at least to say something funny.
I feel like he was a good interviewer when he was younger. I'm just into my 40s now and I can see how you could get worse with age as you start to assume you already know the answers. It's why I've stopped listening to the "In Our Time" podcast in the past few years: all of a sudden Melvyn Bragg talks to the panel like he's double-parked.
I haven’t watched much Charlie Rose in the past 5–10 years, because he was so infuriating to watch before that. So I disagree with your assertion. If you go back and watch his older interviewers I suspect you will change your mind.
is the "two sights" here the rear sight which has two posts, or the two sites as in front sight + rear sight?
several pages of reading and then .. an ambiguously worded conclusion.