By who? By what metric? That is a much shallower claim.
I would wager the guy blaming their middling AI development on "work life balance" was not well liked.
By who? By what metric? That is a much shallower claim.
I would wager the guy blaming their middling AI development on "work life balance" was not well liked.
If it's true? It's a quote from the talk itself.
> it misses the entire point of the parent comment
Not really. I would say cheating on your wife with your PR executive is extremely bad for morale and an all around leadership failing. Just because sex is involved doesn't make it tabloid fodder. I can't just punch a coworker and call it "my personal life."
More importantly, you're ignoring the part of the comment that said he was extremely well liked, which was the baseless claim I responded to. You can say that's not the point of the comment, but that's just because acknowledging it weakens the argument.
Sorry, didn't mean to be unclear - my "even if that's true" was referring to the assertion that Schmidt wasn't well-liked, not your quote.
Yes, he was married. Yes, maybe a serial cheater. Or an awful marriage. Or a great one. I have no idea. But I don’t care?
Dating a coworker (or many) when you are the boss and married is exactly what a sexual predator do. Being a predator doesn't mean he "predate" on every walking thing.
Dating someone at work doesn’t automatically make you a sexual predator. That’s an absurd statement. Plenty of relationships start that way, and sometimes one of them is a boss, and companies have processes for these situations because they happen and the majority of situations are not due to predation.
Are you going to pretend we are not talking about the CEO here? CEOs dating subordinates at work are sexual predators, yes.
However, not every CEO that dates a subordinate is a sexual predator. Again, that is an absurd statement; life is never that black and white. Sometimes, people meet and fall in love regardless of their lot in life. Stating that anytime that happens and one person happens to be a CEO instantly makes that person a sexual predator is not based in any kind of reality.
A CEO that abuses their power or engages in any kind of non-consensual relationship is a different story.
I agree it’s generally a bad idea, because of perception, favoritism, the power imbalance, and a dozen other reasons. But it being a bad idea doesn’t necessarily imply that the CEO is a sexual predator, either.
Sometimes even people in power care about consent.
And sometimes people in power are predators. That happens too. Maybe even more often; I don’t have stats.
I’m not defending Schmidt. I have no idea about him or his sexual proclivities, nor do I know the details about any of his personal relationships. Neither do you. He may be a monster! But dating someone at work isn’t the thing that makes him one.
And yes, you are defending not only Schmidt but maybe yourself too?
Now that we’ve moved solidly from discussion to ad hominems, have a nice day and a nice life.