ihatethissite

Sorry if this is inappropriate context but the subject got me looking at the Cloudflare job board and there are some interesting positions and I'm wondering if it's appropriate to apply to multiple positions at once, or is better to apply to the 'favorite' in the case that there are more than one that interests one?

From the article, "Netflix then suspended Field along with two other employees for trying to attend a director-level meeting they weren’t invited to."

So, while it's true that the employee has been suspended, it doesn't seem to be for the reason the headline suggests.

Why is the alleged perpetrator's age relevant? Seems like a headline intended to provoke an emotional response.

I don't agree with you. I have seen it first hand. Girls find makeup artists they like on youtube that do looks they like and then they follow their recommendations. There are so many options out there. How do you choose? Follow the advice of an influencer. It repeats across the entire market, across all demographics. Building a relationship and then leveraging it. Doing (buying, in this case) something based on the recommendation of another person is basic human behavior. I don't think you should write it off as a boomer thing so easily.

Yup. Okta along with it.

There is a summary in the description of the video.

The author creates a false dichotomy when they write that business is either about making profit or managing cash flow.

Making a profit requires cash flow management, but managing cash flow does not require making a profit. This article does talk about managing cash flows in a way that involves never making a profit.

First, and tangentially, it's interesting that real estate developers do this all the time.

Second, it's interesting that this article shows not only why cable companies regional monopolies are extant, but also that their continued existence relies on the preservation of those monopolies.

These and other companies that rely on a strategy of unfettered subscriber growth, in this case leveraged as a marketing tool to creditors to acquire additional debt, is no different than a Ponzi scheme. It makes the fatal assumption that subscriber growth can continue ad infinitum.

But, similar to the amount of free energy in a system, the number of potential subscribers remaining is finite. Eventually, cash flows will fail to meet the projections sold to creditors and established as assumptions in their financial models.

Thus arises a situation that remains tenable only as long as subscribers remain subscribed for as long as is required to service the debt outstanding at the time the growth stopped. Because the debt didn't go anywhere. It hasn't disappeared. Today that debt is sitting on the balance sheet of every one of America's cable providers: the direct result of a flawed line of thinking promoted by the author.

Consider the implications. To remove the regional monopolies of the cable companies is to not only destroy their subscriber base, and thus their cash flows, but also the cash flows promised to their legion creditors. Every one of these creditors now has a vested interest in the preservation of those monopolies, having themselves extended and received credit based on said promises of payment.

I propose that, contrary to the statements of the author, the proof presented by their friend is not "framed incorrectly". Rather, it shows something the author doesn't wish to see.

This reads to me as being in alignment with the parent comment to which it was posted as a response.

"... voters who will refuse to take a survey flat out" is equivalent to "... simply tak[ing] a neutral, non-committal stance on almost every hot-button issue these days."

How do you figure that it would be considered fair use in one case but not the other?