The letter seems to have two audiences. Investors and employees. It’s easy to criticize this stuff but i have yet to see HN provide any valid feedback in these threads outside of criticizing past decisions of the CEO.
Here’s valid feedback: don’t use ridiculous language (team change), treat us like adults. We know what this is. Don’t turn a message about layoffs into a marketing puff piece about Shopify’s mission to save kittens and make rainbows. Own up to literally any amount of accountability, and be real as for the reasons this is happening (we hired these people knowing the risk we may need to lay them off - we were wrong and now you suffer as a consequence)
Honest question. What good does that do? It’s a company they aren’t here to make you feel better.
They are treating you like an adult by giving you a nice severance package. I don’t understand the need for people to have companies admit they were wrong.
That makes 0 sense without more context or information. Even if interest is a tax deductible expense, it doesn't make sense to spend a dollar to save 30 cents.
Your comment does nothing to aid my understanding of the situation.
Yes, anyone can take out a loan to get money now that they don't have to pay off until the future. Nobody misunderstands that. And I also fully understand taking out loans to invest in productive capacity when you need that capital. But if you have a couple billion dollars sitting in the bank, presumably making less interest than you'd need to pay for a bond issuance, then it still doesn't explain why issuing the bond makes sense.
The key piece missing then is corporate valuation.
This is an arbitrage play based on the difference between investor sentiment and debt on the books.
The idea is that their market valuation will go down less than $1B if they issue a $1B bond.
Similar nonlinearities are true for other corporate holdings. Facebook has $40B cash on hand. If they had $0 on hand, That would hurt their valuation by a lot more than $40B because investors like to see some cash in the bank, and see it as a red flag. Similarly, Investors dont care much about a little debt, and facebook is an outlier in that it has very low levels of corporate debt.
As far as I understand Amazon makes a deliberate choice to reinvest their profit into research, marketing, etc, with the promise that it will grow more in the future.
Musk has been very upfront that Twitter is bleeding money (hence why he is firing so many people), it's not simply that a healthy profit margin is being reinvested.
I would love to see some empirical evidence surrounding these magically enlightening "water cooler" conversations that managers claim creates value out of thin air, because I am convinced it is just lip service from managers and capital holders to justify their existence
I don't know about empirical evidence but surely personal experience must lend some credence to this topic. It is far easier to just hit a whiteboard with a colleague (all virtual options for this are always a mess) and iterate quickly.
I wouldn't know how we would get empirical evidence but collaboration in the office is definitely valuable...I think the debate now is: is it worth all the downsides of commuting and colocating around high COL areas
Knowing Amazon, the S-team absolutely used real data about productivity/cohesion/resilience for teams that spend more time in the office to make this decision, but they are absolutely not going to share it with anybody else.
That would be like Islandia resurrecting British Empire. Literally, well maybe actually Islandia has more right to do so than Russia have anything to do with Rus'.
The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. They now have troops in places bordering Russia, like Poland. It's not really surprising the Russians have tooled-up. And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine).
I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. Treaties signed by the USA, in particular, might as well be used toilet-paper (ask Iran).
> US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany
This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made.
All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.
> And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
> We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
This was a discussion in prelude to the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany [1]. Baker's is a statement of understanding the
"Soviet Union [and] other European countries'" position, not an agreement--not even the hint of one. None of it made it into the final Treaty. Lots of ideas were mooted and abandoned in that transcript; it's revisionist to fixate on that one. (As, again, Gorbachev himself publicly admitted.)
Also, immediately following that statement, Baker says that he does not "have the Germans’ agreement to this approach," and that what he has relayed is "an account of this approach," holding that "maybe something much better can be created." Two men discussing ideas in pursuit of an agreement, which was drafted days and signed months thereafter.
You have claimed that "Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it". This record of preliminary talks with Baker published by Gorbachev Foundation proves the opposite. There's no question this document has no legal bearing, but it's definitely more than just an allegation to say the US have fooled poor Gorbi.
> This record of preliminary talks with Baker published by Gorbachev Foundation proves the opposite
The idea was discussed. Nobody disputes that. Gorbachev disputes there was agreement. A position the transcript supports.
It’s like if two people are negotiating a price; one says 5, the other acknowledges hearing five and proposes 3, and then they trade at 4. Twenty years later, one of their daughters calls foul because the buyer acknowledged hearing 5 but only paid 4. That is the imbecilic position this argument takes.
You're still missing my point: your claim about Gorbachov having no memories of NATO borders negotioations is false, the sole purpose of my comment was to debunk it. There's one thing I can agree with you though: this argument had really taken imbecilic position.
Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? I suppose treaties aren't really legal contracts but some type of metal legal contract where nations themselves are legal persons? Is there a list of treaty breach being enforced in some way? I suppose sanctions are how they generally do it, right?
International treaties generally set out on their face what remedies there are for violations. The WTO is often the forum for resolving problems with trade treaties. Multilateral treaties are often formed under UN auspices, so that (e.g.) the IMO regulates mulilateral maritime agreements.
But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over.
There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.
It should be made clear that the promise not to extend the boundaries of NATO was an informal understanding, it was not written into any treaty, and was made by someone without the authority to ensure that would actually happen. JCPOA aside, there's plenty of treaty-breaking that Russia has engaged in. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine wound up with a large supply of nuclear weapons on its soil, making it the country with the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons to Russia, on the condition that Russia not violate its territorial sovereignty, in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of that agreement (maybe Ukraine will ask for its nukes back). There's also the INF treaty, which the Russians violated with variants of their Iskander missile system. Granted, the Trump administration decided to piss in the proverbial swimming pool rather than try to get Russia back into compliance, but Russia did genuinely start this.
> And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine).
To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting.
> I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties.
I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
> Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO.
Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.
It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
> Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean
This is incorrect on several levels. For starters there's the route you mentioned from the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe you discount that because it goes through NATO-controlled waters, but to get from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean you have to go through the Bosphorus, which is controlled by Turkey, also a NATO member. Second, Russia has several other naval bases on the Black Sea. The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea, and one of the largest ports in all of Russia, and is not in Crimea.
> It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
They did in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact . Ukraine gave Russia a lease on the facility until 2047 in exchange for a discounted contract on natural gas. Russia unilaterally left the treaty after the annexation of Crimea 4 years later. As far as I can tell, the Russian Black Sea fleet has always had access to a naval base in Sevastopol, and at no point was this access threatened.
> In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.
Their carrier is deployed with the northern fleet, and while it was built in Ukraine during the Soviet area it doesn't seem to have actually ever performed operations in the Black Sea, though it certainly could be moved there. I also don't see what about that is "humiliating".
> The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea
Thanks - I am now better-informed.
> I also don't see what about that is "humiliating"
The ship's passage through the English Channel was constantly monitored by UK military jets, as well as by news reporters, who mocked the condition of that decrepit carrier. I don't know if Russian leadership actually felt humiliated, but I'd have been humiliated had it been me (I wouldn't have embarked on the voyage in the first place, unless I had a shiny new ship).
Crimea was a Russian-speaking region of Ukraine before the coup. It's still mainly ethnic-Russian. It was a favourite holiday destination for Russians. It adjoins Russia (well, almost). I'm not aware that Ukraine is fighting Russians in the Crimea; they seem to have surrendered it. I guess they decided that the Crimean population weren't in favour of Ukrainian control, and so it wasn't worth the candle.
What's Denmark got to do with anything? Denmark has zero interests in the Crimea.
So, is the 1994 security agreement about the withdraw of nuclear weapons from Ukraine and signed by Russia toilet-paper as well? They are the only signatary that actually violated Ukraine's territorial integrity.
As far as I am aware there is no signed international agreement that NATO would not extend into Eastern European countries like Ukraine. This is wishful thinking on behalf of Putin and an attempt to put themselves into a victim role.
If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.
NATO bases appeared at Russia's borders way before any invasion happened. In fact, all NATO furtherance's were done at the time when Russia was in its weakest state, democratic and still trying to play nice to the West.
> However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
> As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
You can put it that way, if you like ad-hominem attacks based on forged "quotes". I'm actually pretty angry with Russian military incursions into their neighbours, and I'm glad they withdrew quickly from Kazakhstan.
But I think NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. It has no business operating in e.g. the Middle East. The West has acted provocatively, and it's no surprise if Russia is provoked.
Wow, first time I ever got a maximum -4 downvote (maybe many more). Maybe it was because of rude remarks about toilet-paper. Well, hands up - it was phrased provocatively. Sorry.
> I'm not aware of any financial aid package (outside of maybe some private loans?) that you can apply for with the intent of using that money for car repairs and have it not be fraud.
How do you think people pay rent, feed themselves, buy textbooks, etc, while in school? You just aren’t aware how financial aid works
Student loans explicitly can’t be used for car repairs [0]. You can use it for transportation like buses and trains, rent, gas, and meal plans (but oddly not groceries and restaurants).
So students typically work jobs, use savings, get help from friends and family.
It's not enforced because it's not true, the GP didn't read the article they posted, it's just a shitty financial advice column. Those "restrictions" are just suggestions.
