[kkfx]

I honestly have NOTHING against that: they are a private company, their money, their choice. I have plenty of other bones to pick with them, regarding the harvesting of personal data from smart devices and cloud services, how it's used, and so on, but the salaries of their executives are their own money, so it's their business and I don't see any reason for controversy. In fact, if they happen to lose talents because of their policies or ruin themselves over certain massive salaries, that's their problem, all the better.

Unfortunately, most people seem incapable of attacking what actually needs to be attacked, instead of getting hung up on things that are perfectly legitimate.

[vasco]

They are a public company.

[tombert]

Private in that they're not owned by the taxpayers or government. Amtrak would be an example of a "public" company in the sense that I believe that the poster was describing.

[vasco]

These words have meaning already, and what they said makes no sense due to that. A public company has many obligations a private company doesn't, and more limitations on what it can do.

[khazhoux]

> they are a private company

They are a public company

[kkfx]

Sorry I'm European, I mean "private" in the sense "not a Public Body", they are a company whose board has approved the remuneration using the company's own funds, meaning that the majority of shareholders are happy with this pay package.

[vasco]

The meaning is the same in "European". I'm Portuguese.

[rkomorn]

I'm French and the meaning is similar to what OP described in French "European".