I read the article, am non-white (because that is super important apparently, specially to white libtards who choose to be offended on my behalf), and completely agree with him.
Also, if my neighbor saw a bunch of strangers in my house when I was away, I would want them to call the police. The problem in that particular case is not that they called the police but that the neighbours were not notified about unexpected strangers staying in the neighborhood.
If someone doesn't want me (a brown male) to stay in their house, I would absolutely like to know and would prefer to have a filter to easily find only the places that accept someone like me. The problem is not discrimination. The problem is anti-discrimination bullshit the company has to go through if they provided such a filter to make lives easy for everyone.
The first paragraph of the article heavily implied that a comparison would be made between the insurgency and counter-insurgency tactics of mid 1800s American great plains and modern day Iraq and Afghanistan.
IMO that would probably make a more interesting article. While obviously IS and the Native Americans are ideological worlds apart, both groups ran/run an insurgency against the technologically superior US army. It is worth noting which tactics work and which do not.
And Obama criticizes Israel sometimes by stating that the murder of thousands of civilians or the expansion of illegal settlements are "unneccesary" or "not helpful to peace" too, but it's just window dressing and not to be taken seriously. Certainly it makes no difference to the outcome whatsoever, and never will.
A) That she was paid so much money. A lot of people could have "not succeeded" for a lot less than what they paid her.
B) Her attitude. I have never dealt with her, and am only basing this on what I've read: She seemed to push a lot of bad policies, that made employees upset, with the attitude of "All of this pain is for the Great Reward of turning Yahoo around." Yet at the end of the day, it seems that their sacrifices were for nothing.
She talked big, but never delivered, and is making out quite successfully, for failing. Meanwhile the real brunt and struggle was pushed onto the employees.
EDIT: I also think this resonates with a lot of people, as most of us have had similar execs. "No, we can't afford another server, you'll just have to work harder. Guess you'll just have to work through the night! Oops, it's 5 p.m., time for me to head out to my company-paid steak dinner, in my company-paid car, then time to head home to my company-paid apartment!"
? I'm not sure what you mean. I think most people have much more respect for founders because they start from scratch and turn it into something. She didn't start from scratch, and she didn't turn it into anything.
CaptSpify makes some good points. There's also pride. Outside the SV echo chamber defines big old tech company.
Driving it into the ground at mach 3 makes every leader in SV, every leader in tech, look bad. "Why just like yahoo, I'm sure twitter is worthless and about to go out of business" We either know better, or for various social reasons we can't say stuff like that, so we don't say stuff like that. But she's representing "us" to the world, very poorly indeed, which hurts many people's pride. "Why all those SV CEOs can't lead starving dogs to raw meat, right?" That's gonna bruise some pride. On the very big picture, its no different than a sexual harassment scandal or an arrest for securities fraud. It makes an entire industry look very bad. So the distancing starts. "I'm no Marissa" "She's awful nothing like me or us" "she was never one of us"
"Do people in China in general care enough about censorship to pay for access to uncensored internet?" doesn't have an explicitly obvious answer, does it?
They could be happy with their internet as is. They could be unhappy and willing to pay. They could be unhappy but unwilling/unable to pay.
