Anyolduser

Lemmy is full of lunatics. You found one.

Lemmy has the highest "user" to "dudes off their meds" ratio of any online platform.

Let me start by saying first and foremost the paychecks and severance packages are beyond ridiculous. Like fucking unconscionable.

Now, that being said yes, when the CEO rightly or wrongly (typically rightly) becomes the fall guy their career is over. If they manage to get another job it probably won't be in a leadership position, and if it is it would be with a much smaller organization that simply won't be able to pay them the big bucks. The best a CEO can hope for after a public downfall is to be put out to pasture.

I don't feel sad for them. While their golden parachute might represent literally the last money they will ever make it's more than enough to live off of for the rest of their lives.

There's an even bigger picture, though. Their personal reputation is ruined, but so is their family name. With the amount of money and prestige they were building up they may have had aspirations of positioning their kids as the elites of the future. Family money and connections could have ended up with their children some day becoming Senators and Congressmen. If they end up taking the fall, their public failure will sully their name for a couple of generations.

The kind of people that become CEOs of high-profile companies are a special breed of psycho. They're willing to accept huge piles of money to roll the dice on their own career and the reputation of themselves, their children, and their grandchildren on the off chance they manage to avoid the chopping block until retirement.

My money is on Iranian psyops influencing people.

The alternative is that people that stupid actually exist and I'm not ready to give up hope for humanity.

Yeah, OP might just be a dumbass.

Is it really "taking" responsibility if it's getting pinned on you?

I was about to say ...

Vox can speak for itself. Big sections of the public knew they were being sold a bill of goods.

There's an important thing that the CEO provides that no AI can: the acceptance of risk.

On a day-to-day basis the CEO makes decisions, ignores expert advice, knocks off early for tee time, etc. For this work they are wildly overpaid and could easily be replaced by having their responsibilities divvied up amongst a small group of people in leadership roles.

To see the true purpose of the CEO we need to look at a bigger scale - the quarter-to-quarter scale. What could be bigger than that in the world of the MBA?

Every quarter the CEO must have the company meet the financial performance expectations of the board/owner(s)/shareholders. Failure is likely to result in them losing their job and getting a reputation as an underperformer, thus ruining their career. If the company does poorly or those expectations are unreasonably high then the CEO must cut corners in the operation. This of course hampers their ability to meet expectations later, but they'll make it through this quarter.

When (inevitably) too many corners have been cut something catastrophic will happen. Either the company's reputation will go to shit with customers slowly, or a high-profile scandal will blow up in the company's face.

This is the moment when the CEO provides their most valuable service: to fall (or be pushed) onto their sword. The CEO is fired, ousted, or resigns. This allows the board/owner/shareholders to get a new face in and demand that they fix the most egregious issues, or at least the most glaring ones that don't cost too much to fix.

This service cannot be provided by an AI. Why? Because the AI is a creation of the company. If it is used as a scapegoat it solves nothing. The company is pointing at their own creation and saying "see, that's the problem". It's much more effective to point at a human they didn't make and scream that that person made a mistake.

Characters in Jurassic Park are portrayed as flawed, imperfect people who make mistakes. None of the plot relies on them being idiots or anything, but people screw up, panic on occasion, and don't know things from time to time.

Dr. Grant using a stick to test the fence is a mistake, albeit a small one without real consequences. While it doesn't distract from his character arc of how he feels about kids, it is his character simply messing up.

I also disagree with the person you replied to. While their assessment is correct, Dr. Grant is a character with a lot of time working in the field and therefore has a lot of practical skills. He does way, way better than a doctorate in mathematics working in academia would. Writing off all people with a doctorate (or experts in general) as being hyper specialized is a mistake.

I seem to recall a saying about pots and kettles...

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

I'm really, really hoping a lot of folks see that comment. Online communities are rife with intelligence agents actively trying to sway online discourse.

There's a term in intelligence work for people who fight or support a cause they don't fully understand: useful idiots. Anyone reading this, take a hard look at the facts of any situation. Do everything you can to cut down to the actual truth wherever possible. Make up your own mind. Don't be a useful idiot.