It seems likely biased as well unfortunately if they let teams decide on their own what to use. I would wager that teams who on their own switched to Rust are probably teams that were already productive.

At least I attempted to looked it up, rather than everyone else who assumed it just can't happen at all while also knowing nothing about it.

The irony is that it very well could have been a disadvantage for her to get picked. The incumbent advantage isn't really a thing for people appointed to the seat, and she'd be stuck doing Senate things for the next year instead of campaigning.

Keep in mind it's not an all or nothing thing, they'll assign percentages of fault. It's also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.

Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.

It's not quite what you're getting at, but in Bubble Bobble Revolution you can't pass level 30 because the boss doesn't spawn. It's a soft lock but there's nothing you can do to avoid it, and the game is on the DS so there's no updates to fix it :D

The only makes sense if they actually wanted to keep him that long after he tried to quit. We don't know for sure but potentially they just wanted to keep him around long enough to find a replacement (since he just told them he's quitting).

I think you're missing a detail here, which is that before streaming was a thing writers would make significant amounts of their money by getting a show syndicated on a network, that was the whole deal. Streaming is being treated differently, effectively resulting in then receiving a very large pay cut because even if they make a successful show the payout doesn't come.

And it's true they could structure things so that they don't receive a secondary payout, but their base salary was negotiated with that later payout in mind. You and I don't receive secondary payouts for our work, but our salary is also adjusted to recognize that.

Maybe, but there's a market out there for CEOs who are willing to take the blame for some unpopular decisions and then walk away. There's also something to be said that "-50%" might actually be an improvement over where it was before she was hired, and the bad decisions weren't hers.

Fundimentally none of the data on here is private, it's not designed to be private.

He still owns the company so it doesn't matter who the CEO is, he is their boss. If he wants to continue making big business decisions then he still can, and if the CEO doesn't agree he can either fire them or just go over their head.

Are we sure on that? I've seen conflicting reports on whether they actually started paying or not (Ex. Engadget article from a week ago says they are). It's not public information so it's hard to verify.

Does Twitter Blue show ads? I guess I assumed if you're paying you don't have to see those, but that would make too much sense 🤦‍♂️