The interesting part as far as the salaries they are not obscene. Many of the people who started learning at women who code could easily be making more than the CEO by now.
Individually, they're not obscene - but they are leaders of many, many organizations at the same time. If they make an income from each of these positions, I think it would add up pretty fast.
For example, according to her linkedin, the CEO of WWC is also the Strategic Advisor of a banking company, an Advisory Board Member of 3 organizations including a university, and a Principal (?) of some LLC. Simultaneously.
Are you thinking of the board of directors? It looks like the C-level officers at that non-profit are the ones taking a salary, the board members all get $0.
It's common for members of the board to serve in similar capacities in other organizations, but not very common for the C-suite to do it, though of course it does happen.
That seems ridiculous. All while ICs are getting fired for having 2 jobs and making squat at either. I find it hard to believe that someone can hold so many positions and actually provide meaningful value to any of them.
Those board positions are likely high single digit hours per month commitments. Binge watching a Netflix show level time commitment so not exactly comparable to over-employment.
> His companies are doing fine and he's still super rich.
Tesla sales are down a lot , even as they give up margin to lower price in an effort to boost sales.
Twitter is not profitable, heavily indebted, and likely loosing a lot of traffic.
SpaceX is one of the most promising opportunities for him, and even that has huge structural risks due to clients being governments and is barely (rarely) profitable.
The boring company, neurolink, etc are barely real companies, they're just vanity projects for him.
Down from super high is still high. Still profitable company with an incredibly high market cap.
> Twitter is not profitable, heavily indebted, and likely loosing a lot of traffic.
Twitter's market cap hasn't change much. The perception of it losing value and being in trouble has a lot more to do with people's personal feeling (ironically expressed on X), rather than economics. It wasn't profitable when he bought it and it's not profitable now. It's still worth roughly what he bought it for.
> SpaceX is one of the most promising opportunities for him, and even that has huge structural risks due to clients being governments and is barely (rarely) profitable.
By your own admission, profitable and future projects are set to make it more even more profitable. Governments are the least risky clients there are.
> The boring company, neurolink, etc are barely real companies, they're just vanity projects for him.
That he spends relatively little money on, hardly worth mentioning, either positive or negative.
> Still profitable company with an incredibly high market cap
A market cap that has more than halved in the last year. And market cap isn’t everything. Plummeting sales amid higher competition, layoffs, etc don’t paint a great picture.
> Twitter's market cap hasn't change much
Since what time period? Since after he shaved 70% of it off? [1]. It wasn’t and still isn’t profitable, yes, but it now has a far higher debt load and a drop in advertising revenues which make it worth less.
> profitable and future projects are set to make it more even more profitable.
Oh I said rarely and barely profitable. That doesn’t imply much profit, nor potential. It has promise, yes, but clear profits… no. Sorry for the confusion. They turned a profit only for one quarter. The structural risks are due to government subsidies that can (and are) being pulled from SpaceX. Starlink has been a huge boom to its revenue, but those subsidies were part of that. His errant behavior could jeopardize additional contracts (eg his drug use).
> hardly worth mentioning
The trail of headline worthy businesses are worth mentioning because they add to his allure and image. That they have little business potential, amount to trivial cost to him, and are for vanity, makes them meaningless.
SpaceX wanted more subsidies ($900M) to build starlink. They wanted ISP subsidies to reach "last mile" customers. The reason given for the subsidy rejection: SpaceX over-promised, under-delivered (an Elon theme).
Generally, Tesla built its sales on the EV subsidy, Solar City is based on Solar Installation subsidies. Starlink was going to be subsidy-driven. Most of the factories/land for Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity were based on where the government would provide tax credits or other subsidies.
As Elon gets more politically active (and controversial) his ability to attract politicians for publicity will be scrutinized and harder to come by. Especially if he under-delivers on commitments.
You can't pull something you never gave. If you understand the RDOF bid and how Telco subsidies work you'll understand there's nothing political and talk about under delivering don't make sense because the time of the test is in the future
Tesla and Twitter are not doing fine. He's trying to get Tesla to agree to his original compensation bonus that was rejected by the Delaware courts. But that bonus was for bringing the valuation over $650 billion. The valuation has now dropped to under 500 billion
Musk's performance award included 12 tranches of stock options that were unlocked at $50b intervals from $100b to $650b of market cap, with a few other requirements. At Tesla's current price, 8 of the 12 tranches would still be unlocked.
Which occurred primarily before he took over Twitter and ran it into the ground while at the same time tanking the goodwill people had for Tesla.
It really seems unlikely one human can split themselves between so many projects and keep all of them successful unless they dis-engage from a few and let those they hired run the show (mostly how he's behaved with SpaceX). If the person is like this they likely don't deserve the sort of compensation talked about in this article.
Before you reply about the obviously lower valuation over the last few years, take a look at some comparable companies: https://companiesmarketcap.com/
The economic realities of Musk's ventures does not align with what seems to be the zeitgeist opinion of him as a person.
Your first link doesn't show what you think it does, but there are quite a number of articles about Musk losing advertisers on Twitter (and even telling them to go f themselves).
That's all fine, opinionated stuff. I too cackle at the thought of Musk walking away from this whole ordeal with nothing. My post simply corrects the factual errors in the other guy's post.
Entirely true, in fact. I've read what Matt Levine wrote. I've also read the actual proxy statement from Tesla, which Matt Levine cites and links! You too can read it, here for example, in the summary on page 17: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001318605/0...
That just means the owner of a single-member LLC, or sometimes the largest stakeholder for a multi-member LLC. It's not an unusual title for an LLC.
From reading her LinkedIn, it sounds like she's doing consulting and advising under an LLC instead of as an unincorporated sole proprietor. Again, really nothing unusual there, especially for the leader of a nonprofit.
I mean, quite a bit of that stuff people pay premium for is already counterfeit even at stores like whole foods. I don't know how common it is, but it does exist.
My complaint is not just that counterfeit exists, but Amazon's lackluster response in dealing with it (here's your refund; now GTFO). Secondly, I'd guess that WF may have 1 ~ 2 suppliers for a given product, but Amazon may have hundreds, if they eventually allow 3rd party sellers. So they would have a harder time vetting their suppliers just by numbers alone. Finally, Amazon's warehousing policy of co-mingling stocks from different suppliers exacerbates the problem further.
> Apple offers quite a bit of free software when you purchase their hardware. This includes OS upgrades and their office suite as well as Xcode and Garage Band, among other things. It's quite nice and they are well made.
Most of that is not "free software" in the way this blog post is talking about (FOSS). XCode has FOSS components, parts of the OS are FOSS, etc. However, much of it is not.
Yes, I was mainly talking about the free as in beer. Not as much free as in freedom regarding Apple's stuff.
Apple used to charge for all their software. I give FOSS credit for changing that. I think Lion was the first free OS upgrade. I credit FOSS for Microsoft giving a real copy of Visual Studio away for free. They've done it in the past, IIRC, but it was so hobbled, it was useless.
>Apple used to charge for all their software. I give FOSS credit for changing that.
I give the credit to Microsoft's market share. The fact is ~99% of Mac switchers like me previously owned Windows boxes and ran mostly proprietary Windows software. The free applications you get with a Mac are a way to cushion the blow of giving those up and in some cases offer features you just can't get direct equivalents for on Windows. Offering Time Machine, Photos, iMovie, Pages, etc for free has nothing to do with the existence of Libre software and everything to do with marketing the platform to switchers from Windows.
Clearly Libre software has had a huge effect on OSX, in fact the OS itself is based on free software and large swathes of its base components, tools and services are free software of one sort or another to this day. But none of those are name check features marketable to consumers other than just as MacOS.
In the dev tool arena yes, free software has had a huge effect. Specifically I think making very capable versions of VS available free was a response to the existence of high quality free .NET development tools. MS want people to develop on Windows using their own tool chains and if roughly equivalent free tools exist and become popular, there's really no cost to offering an equivalent for free any more given VS has to exist anyway.
> The fact is ~99% of Mac switchers like me previously owned Windows boxes and ran mostly proprietary Windows software
And now it's mostly proprietary macOS software. As you mention, the hard hitters in Apple's lineup are proprietary (Time Machine, Photos, iTunes, etc.) and the average user doesn't care that they can use BSD utilities on the command line. It's not dissimilar to the PS4, Switch etc. not being OSS consoles despite running a BSD kernel. Just because they use some FOSS parts for their OS, a FOSS ecosystem doesn't automatically appear.
I also think there's very little to no real community around Apple's FOSS, at least for their homegrown projects, not counting e.g. CUPS or KHTML/WebKit where they got the community for free when they took over or adopted the project. Note that even that didn't go without problems (e.g. with the KDE project) and Apple first had to learn how to behave as a good FOSS citizen.
Other community bits weren't as successful. OpenDarwin for example has shut down and PureDarwin needs a release still. Swift might be an exception and maybe we'll see more of that. I may also be very wrong here, I don't follow their projects too closely.
To even develop on macOS "officially", you need Xcode, thus an Apple ID, thus there is forced registration. You're transmitting your personal details to a US company and you agree to their terms and conditions, which can already be a problem. Are Iranian developers excluded? Cuban ones? Oh, it depends on the whims of the current US administration, you say? The GPL for example does not tolerate such limitations.
I don't know, but I think the atmosphere on macOS today is more like FOSS is present, but not really encouraged by the platform owner, and that's important. It's not like it was when macOS was still OS X and everyone was all "ooo, look, Ruby comes preinstalled!". Now that they managed to attract some critical mass of developers for macOS to be viable, they don't seem to care that much about FOSS anymore.
If you suffer abuse as a child from your parent, you still have a consistent presence in that parent. The idea the article was suggesting was that you need to have an actual relationship with someone.
I think parent comment was referring to "Sybil" or something similar (it isn't the only story about DID like this), which was based on a real person, except there's indication her psychiatrist was tricking her into thinking she had multiple personalities and then helping resolve those personalities in order to make money off the story. Pretty much everything about the case is unclear at this point, other than that shady biz was going on everywhere once people realized there was big money to be made.
By "debunked", the parent meant, "there is little clinical evidence for existence."
The burden of proof for the diagnosis is on the assertion; people can act as though they have multiple personalities, and that's why there is controversy on the disease itself.
I think it'd go a long way to make laws that require software that is embedded on devices to 1. be patchable by the user and 2. The software has to be open source if the company is no longer able to maintain it.
