←back to thread

Linda Yaccarino is leaving X

(www.nytimes.com)
543 points donohoe | 7 comments | 09 Jul 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 1.374s | source | bottom
Show context
CyberMacGyver ◴[09 Jul 25 14:57 UTC] No.44510796[source]▶
One time they let her speak publicly it turned out to be a disaster. She never had any say and worst part is she was not even a good fall guy, it was clear who’s pulling the strings. The most immaterial and inconsequential hire ever.

I love all the replies on Twitter thanking her but during her time the valuation dropped 80% and they were suing advertisers for not advertising. Remarkably inept.

replies(17): >>44510897 #>>44510953 #>>44510983 #>>44511425 #>>44511714 #>>44511753 #>>44511880 #>>44512012 #>>44512131 #>>44512214 #>>44512413 #>>44512547 #>>44512796 #>>44513070 #>>44513587 #>>44515113 #>>44516760 #
andsoitis ◴[09 Jul 25 15:08 UTC] No.44510953[source]▶
You’re saying two things:

- she is inept

- she never had any say (which I interpret, perhaps incorrectly, that she is competent but had her hands were tied)

Which is it?

replies(5): >>44510995 #>>44511032 #>>44511058 #>>44511365 #>>44511505 #
Xiol32 ◴[09 Jul 25 15:11 UTC] No.44510995[source]▶
Arguably a competent person wouldn't have persisted in a role where it was obvious they were not able to make a meaningful difference.
replies(2): >>44511191 #>>44511495 #
1. snickerdoodle12 ◴[09 Jul 25 15:46 UTC] No.44511495[source]▶
You'd be insane to leave a job with such few responsibilities and such insane compensation. Set for life.
replies(2): >>44512251 #>>44514808 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[09 Jul 25 16:51 UTC] No.44512251[source]▶
Unless you think said job is edging into "oh shit I might be part of the Nuremberg Trials II" territory.

Life got short for quite a few historical Nazis.

replies(1): >>44512278 #
3. snickerdoodle12 ◴[09 Jul 25 16:54 UTC] No.44512278[source]▶
Sure, and I agree, but that's not really related to what GP is saying
replies(1): >>44512327 #
4. ceejayoz ◴[09 Jul 25 16:58 UTC] No.44512327{3}[source]▶
It's related to what you are saying. It's a non-monetary reason it'd be non-insane to leave the role; "set for life" doesn't do you much good if you're in The Hague.
replies(1): >>44512415 #
5. snickerdoodle12 ◴[09 Jul 25 17:04 UTC] No.44512415{4}[source]▶
No, it's not. Here, I'll repeat the context for you:

> > Arguably a competent person wouldn't have persisted in a role where it was obvious they were not able to make a meaningful difference.

> You'd be insane to leave a job with such few responsibilities and such insane compensation. Set for life.

Pay special attention to the phrasing "a role". We are not talking about specifically this role.

replies(1): >>44512434 #
6. ceejayoz ◴[09 Jul 25 17:05 UTC] No.44512434{5}[source]▶
> You'd be insane to leave a job with such few responsibilities and such insane compensation. Set for life.

Again: you would not be insane to do so if staying in the job has substantial non-compensation consequences. Like jail.

7. toomanyrichies ◴[09 Jul 25 21:15 UTC] No.44514808[source]▶
Some might argue there are more important things in life than compensation.

Self-respect, for example.