What flaws? Age really badly in what sense?
359 karma · joined August 7, 2013
Could be.
> Here is what you seem to think happened: Daniel Ek fired a bunch of people during an open trading window, saw that the stock price went up, and sold a bunch of shares.
Nope.
> Executives. Do. Not. Have. Windows. To. Sell. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
You can stop whenever? Obviously I know this. Windows are just further restrictions to add to the schedule. I'm certainly not an expert, but I dunno why the concept of combining restrictions is so hard to comprehend.
You're on your own for the rest of the misinterpretations though. I think those ones are easier if you think a little harder about it.
You replied to the above with
>It may not be a much better approach than pandering and patronizing their feelings, but it's probably at least a little bit better.
It's not better. That's all. If you missed that and were never talking about unsolicited advice from strangers, then I'm sure we agree.
However, If some rando tells me to do something either obvious or pointless in a condescending way (which is pretty much what the article is talking about, and very common even in this comment section talking about it) it is 100% of the time way more harmful than helpful.
Well, you said it was "at best a gamble". I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret that besides you saying there was "at best" a 50/50 shot of either outcome happening from the perspective of the ones that announced it. I'm going to assume this is not what you meant.
Anyway, since it's established that we're in agreement (maybe? It's not easy to figure out your point of view) that executives are generally able to know with some degree of certainty >50% that their actions will create a specific effect on their stock price. And we also can agree that it is their decision when to announce and execute these actions. It's clearly and obviously a problem that they also are aware of when the stock that they hold in large quantities will be bought and sold.
> Is it a problem? It seems unsolvable if so, unless we should ban CEOs from receiving stock compensation?
If we can agree on the previous bit, then I have no idea why we should throw up our hands and be like "well I guess this is an impossible problem to solve". It's really not. Just be more restrictive with the windows in which executives are allowed to sell. Better yet spread their entire buy/sell order over the course of the year. Or even better still, don't allow them to sell stock AT ALL until they are not in charge or aware of high level decisions at the company.
CEO pay is on average 399x their average employee(https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/). Then, we also allow them to pump their portfolio on a whim at the expense of their employees. I would say personally I don't really care if their compensation suffers, since they've probably already 10x'd my lifetime earnings in their last year of work, and I'd happily switch places with them financially if they're so hard done by.
> It’s easy to get caught up in conspiracies that we want to be true.
I'm not saying there even needs to be a conspiracy for this specific case. I'm pointing out that there is nothing in the law that would stop them from taking advantage of this timing. Also that previous layoffs have resulted in a bump in share price multiple times in a row, and what do you know, it happened again. Even if it was a gamble, how can you deny that they're able to time information drops to their personal advantage? Isn't that a problem in itself?
I can also light my couch on fire to warm the living room but that doesn't mean I should. Short term jumps are fairly predictable if you're calling the shots. Doesn't mean that you can do them indefinitely or without cost.
The 10b5-1 schedule is referenced often by executives as an alibi against insider trading. Let's just be realistic that it likely doesn't prevent anything of the sort.
We should stop acting like this reflects a large increase in the inherent value of Spotify, it's just another speculative market. Tech is particularly bad for this.
I explicitly didn't intend to scope my brief comment about "the least funny people" to encapsulate the entirety of humanity and I don't care to discuss this pedantic claim that "well technically N>0; QED".
Most of the comment you're saying doesn't matter was just me talking about comedians because I like comedy. If you don't like comedy, don't continue the conversation. If you disagree with something I said in a human capacity, not a "prove me wrong" capacity, then say so. I'm not as invested in this "claim" as you are to disproving it, clearly.
Being able to identify the conclusion that is not being said does not make me the target of the message. It just makes me someone with too much time invested in the 'culture wars' of today.
If we really want to talk about these actual comedians (who are all very funny in their own right), I would say that Bill Burr is a snowflake who had a bad set, Dave Chappelle should really learn to not make jokes at the expense of people who are currently facing severe systemic oppression, and John Cleese is an over-reacting octogenarian, far past his prime and aligning himself with an anti-vax fake news network; not the arbiter of truth you think he is.
They aren't coming across as particularly sympathetic to me, and the comedy scene will forget them if they're not able to adapt their material to a changing generation. Comedy is temporally bound and what is good comedy changes over time.
People find different things funny, so there should be a diversity of choice in comedy. I've been to sets that I personally didn't find funny, but the audience was locals with a different sense of humour than me and they loved it. It wasn't bad, just not my style, but it didn't operate at the expense of someone else. I've been to sets where the comedian on stage floundered and lashed out at the audience for being too sensitive, and the next comedian killed it without being 'sensitive' to the audience, just by being funny.
Here are some funny comedians that I've seen this year that managed to not be transphobic or align themselves with conspiracy theories about vaccinations:
- Arthur Simeon
- The Lucas Brothers
- Malik Elassal
- Alonzo Bodden
- Joyelle Nicole Johnson
- Fortune Feimster
- Steph Tolev
Plus a bunch of others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Check them out if you care to. I don't think any of them are complaining that they can't be funny anymore, they're doing just fine, and I think they're bringing fresh comedy to the scene.
In my opinion, if the old guard wants to show themselves out because they feel like they can't compete, they should feel free to.
You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
?? ok.
Someone should have told that to the 12-18 year olds that would scream it at women as soon as one opened their mouth online in early xbox live during the "videogames are for boys" marketing era.
Since you seem to be arguing in good faith (albeit also in poor taste), when you ask a question like "Remember when you could make jokes?" it pegs your sense of humour to an era where women and minorities were the butt of oft repeated derogatory jokes. These jokes are not even worth considering for their comedic value because they were almost devoid of it in even the scenario that you outline.
A throwaway joke that relies on its shock value to derive any merit because it is not clever in the slightest. A category of joke that oversaturated the online landscape at one point, and now those with any sense of humour are numb to it.
When you repeat these types of jokes where the punchline is "racism" or "sexism" and people roll their eyes and don't laugh, it's not because they're offended, it's because your sense of humour is immature and underdeveloped.
So I repeat my earlier question: "Isn't it funny that the least funny people always complain about their inability to make jokes anymore?"
Really deep, thought-provoking insight.
Hilarious that you talk about nuance while explicitly removing nuance from the discussion by saying "A joke is a joke is a joke".
Ok dude, I'll look for your comedy special where you tell women to make you a sammich or put on a terribly racist Chinese accent and talk about eating cats or whatever.
No. Do you?
Plus the misattribution of watered-down safe products from corporations as being because they're "pc or driven by diversity" instead of driven by profits and avoiding controversy because it would hurt their bottom line.
It's like saying that babies are to blame for bad children's programming.