Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HA
Posts
1
Comments
325
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Treated with the same care - yes. Treated with the same expectation - no.

    By definition Beta is going to have bugs and given enough time and effort Valve will find it. But you wanted the updates faster and that's the cross you bear by switching to Beta. What happened to you sucks but if you don't want to catch bugs then switch to prod / stable channel, simple.

  • The shareholders elect the BOD and they can remove them if they like. So in theory if you want to burn the house down then go after the shareholders too and the capitalistic society, but in my opinion that's another battle for another time.

    In practice this is the reason why companies have CEOs. They are practically accountable for exactly the stuff like this, it's a well known part of their job description. That's the reason why I don't really consider him a scapegoat because, well, it's literally his job.

  • OK, how about the shareholders that elect the Board of Directors? Should they be "removed" as well?

    My point is the function of the Chief Executive Officer is specifically to be accountable and responsible for the business functions of the company. Yes, BOD has made a bad call selecting him as a CEO and the shareholders will have an opportunity to re-elect the BOD, but how the business is run (the "Chief Executive" part) is owned by the CEO. And in this case he fucked up especially if he championed this pricing structure.

  • Business and the economy is doing pretty good atm tho.

    Interest is high which is why you are seeing pushes from all these companies to monetize and generate revenue. Borrowing money isn't cheap or near-free anymore, and investors are on their backs.

  • I would settle for a short story tying it up at this point, he could do that.

    I disagree - I prefer that Fincher do his job, tell the story the best way possible instead of trying to force everything into a single season or two for "closure".

    I also think the only reason why you feel this way is BECAUSE Fincher took his time to make two fantastic seasons and a killer cliffhanger. Had he not done that, folks here would probably be complaining about how Mindhunters is a rushed, crammed, underachieving show and not of the quality that we come to expect of Fincher. It would be a completely different show and not the premise we are basing the discussion on.