I understand the reasons better, it’s unfortunate and slightly depressing to me that the community hasn’t been able to come up with a better solution. Particularly as the google analytics approaches involves giving data up to a 3rd party for processing.
Yes but you’re saying twitter say their metrics are off by a factor of 5 because it’s not running the GA JS. If you wanted to properly investigate that looking at the server logs would probably give a better idea in this case.
I guess with serverless you should be able to see this either with your own logging or perhaps on AWS with Cloudwatch? (no idea as I’ve not used it).
Interesting, it’s always been my assumption, and unless everyone is operating in good faith, if don’t have board control (and/or >50% of equity) it’s a possibility that I might well get diluted to nothing.
As such, unless I’m confident that I trust everyone involved, I would value equity quite low (and I’ve certainly been screwed out of equity in the past...)
In Japanese there’s 地球 which means Earth (this planet), and 土 which means soil.
地 can also mean soil, but it’s a different word from 地球 meaning the planet earth. I don’t think it’s commonly used by itself to mean soil either, but I could be wrong.
While the OP has said they have 20% equity. Given the other two founders have a controlling interest, to what extent could they push the OP out and take/reduce their equity?
I’m not saying they would, but I’m wondering how possible it is. Could they vote to redistribute equity, or massively dilute OPs equity and then distribute more equity to themselves for example?
First author should be the person who did the work, that’s pretty strandard. Corresponding author doesn’t always need to be first author.
Honestly this does sound pretty terrible. The student doesn’t have to publish, and you don’t get to misrepresent yourself as first author if they don’t want to.
Really really want to be first author, redo the work yourself. That’s the only way you can claim credit (and responsibility) for having done the work.
That’s fair enough, I don’t think that process would work here though?
I also don’t understand why you would do that. Given the ceramic part in question doesn’t look like anything that would be on a motherboard, and has been identified as an RF component.
Your profile says you cofounded Industry Dive. A company cofounded by 3 men.
If you really believed that all companies should have a more balanced gender balance at the board level, you would have brought on at least one female cofounder (or just have not founded a company if you couldn’t find one).
Quotas suggest an approach that works more like “we know some fences are damaged in various ways, one way many of the fences are damaged is that they have water damage. So we’re going to replace 25% of the poles in all fences, with poles resistant to water damage.”
There’s an argument that if you show that there’s been gender discrimination, you should throw out the entire board and put a new one in place using a process more resistant to all forms of discrimination.
But applying a fix without strong evidence that discrimination has taken place does seem lazy, because you’re attempting to apply a blanket fix. It does nothing to address the underlying issues, and tries to apply a fix in cases where no issue exists.
Let’s say you expect boards in general to be 50% male/female.
In case where this is not the case, and where it has not been the case for a number of years you might launch an investigation.
It might be that there are reasonable reasons in this instance. For example, the company was cofounded by two women or men, it’s a small company, and the composition of the board has never changed etc.
It might be that the company has a board with frequently changing members, but always selects male members. In that case, it’s easier to argue that discrimination has taken place. At which point you might launch an investigation and apply penalties etc.
There is clearly an issue, but if we attempt to fix it with positive discrimination, we just create more issues.
A better way to approach the problem might be increased scrutiny (for discrimination) on boards/companies with significant gender bias, and increased penalties.
This would be harder to implement of course, but might go further to actually solving the issue.
I understand the reasons better, it’s unfortunate and slightly depressing to me that the community hasn’t been able to come up with a better solution. Particularly as the google analytics approaches involves giving data up to a 3rd party for processing.