[btown]

"You need to think of [Megan] Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about [Annapurna]." -- Bryan Cantrill, on the sins of the father, heavily editorialized.

https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=38m24s

[lofaszvanitt]

He talks about Larry Ellison.

[mkl]

Yes, btown says that: "Bryan Cantrill, on the sins of the father, heavily editorialized".

[shakow]

That's why GP used brackets to denote the adaptation of the quote by changin the first name.

[kelnos]

That's not how I read it. Often square braces are used to denote a -- factual -- addition to a quote, in order to add information that would otherwise make the quote incomplete or confusing to the reader. Square braces around "Megan" doesn't mean "it was actually someone else and I'm taking creative license with the quote".

[karaterobot]

True, but they did link to the exact timestamp of the original quote, so it's not like they were hiding anything. The only people apt to be tricked are people who make firm conclusions without checking the sources first.

[kelipso]

You don't need to form firm conclusions about anything to get tricked by an internet comment. Pretty much everyone reading this would get the wrong idea about the quote. No one is going to the source and forming "firm conclusions" for some random quote.

[karaterobot]

To be candid, I couldn't think of a polite way to say you'd have to be credulous to believe that's what the quote was about, and irresponsible not to double-check before posting about it.

[diziet_sma]

If I didn't know the original quote I would have thought the same. It would be clearer to use L̶A̶R̶R̶Y̶ Megan Ellison

[ethbr1]

This seems like a very different scenario -- don't be part of a hobby business that's so low on the owner's radar that they aren't willing to bleed for it.

Because if they lose interest and everything explodes, you're out of a job and they're still a billionaire.

[johnnyanmac]

so, 99.9% of all businesses? passion or not a company will gut your position if it means more money or power.

But yes, this is an extreme scenario. it sounds (crudely put) like Ellison saw the pandemic, completely retreated for a while, then decided to come back and act like nothing changed and just shuffeled stuff around. Then when her labor decided they wanted to be more independent she sat on her hands.

I'm just proud the workers for a rare time could actually just completely walk away. Many issues would be solved almmost overnight if workers could coordinate a joint walkout like this.

[karlgkk]

The majority of businesses are not run by billionaires, in fact most of them are more tightly affiliated than the average large tech company.

It's not nearly as simple as you're making it out, and those of us that work in large capital industries (tech), have a very different relationship than the majority of workers in America.

I'm not saying we don't share problems, or that they don't have their own issues that are worse, just that your view doesn't reflect the total of reality

[johnnyanmac]

well I can't prove my notions, so I suppose we're at a stalemate. All I can say is I never felt like much more than a number in any company I worked at that had more than, say, 10 people on staff. So whether they want to tank the company or are pouring 110% of their soul into the product doesn't seem to trickle down here to my level.

[ethbr1]

The relevant metric would be corporate value/market cap to owner net worth.