I suspect that the issue here is that either the VP was insecure or that the engineer said it in an accusatory way (or both).
In all likelihood, the engineer meant "that approach/idea/decision has risks we should consider." The VP likely heard "you are suggesting something wrong/dangerous/ignorant."
A nuance here is that the engineer probably implied that "(We should be) careful (in our consideration)" and the VP perceived "(You need to be) careful (and you don't seem to be)"
Depending on how large the company is, how it is structured, and how long they have been around, it might be the first time they've had to facilitate this exact transaction. It is possible that they are dealing with their lawyers to guide them on how to proceed. My mind wouldn't go straight to foul play.
My advice here would be to collect all of the documentation you can and make the clearest, most complete communication of your intention that you can through a channel that can be stored for later (email or registered mail including a dated letter with an indication that there is a copy).
Give the benefit of the doubt: "I realize that you are busy and may be trying to figure out how to proceed."
But super clear about concern, intention, and desired outcome: "I would like to exercise my option holdings at this time. I want to make sure that we are able to conduct this transaction in advance of the XYZ timeline detailed in the option plan. If, for whatever reason, it is easier for me to make this request of some other individual, group, or firm, please do let me know.
If you know the corporate law firm that represents the company, you can also reach out to them directly or indicate to management that you are going to reach out to them (not in a threatening way, but in a I'm-looking-for-a-response-and-am-not-going-away way). The law firm may actually be the option plan administrator, and they are duty-bound to administer it per contract.
The optimal mode of locomotion in an aquatic environment (at least for medium-to-large animals that find themselves neutrally buoyant) represents a similar evolutionary minima/descent toward a "fish-like" shape and anatomy. There is a "best" way to move in water. Moving is important for survival. Therefore these creatures generally trend towards being more effective movers (absent other, non-locomotive descent vectors).
And any hands for Google Reader? I don't think any other tool has had that level of impact on my content consumption, prior or since. It was everything it needed to be and not anything more. RIP.
Speaking for myself; one of the most meaningful pieces to me was understanding the "why". For example, if you read a cookbook, it will tell you precisely "what" to do. A good cookbook or a recipe-like youtube video will tell you "how" to do it. If all you ever do is make that one recipe, the "what" and the "how" can get you there if that is how your brain works (mine doesn't).
Understanding "why" this step is before that step, or "why" the temperature needs to be as it suggests, or "why" the ingredients are in that ratio... that unlocks an entirely new level of cooking. Now you can go off-recipe or make ingredient replacements to accommodate what's in the fridge or try something you've never even seen before with reasonably high confidence that it will come out well.
It is like the difference between memorizing your multiplication table and really understanding multiplication. Or the difference between being able to follow directions from point A to point B and knowing the area well enough to chart a path to the destination regardless of roadblocks.
In any case, I am a science nerd (as I assume many of you are). For me, the show Good Eats (or honestly, most of what Alton Brown does) was a refreshing and educational angle that developed and supported a lot of my understanding about "why" as it relates to food.
I think this is particularly true in the sense that woodworkers (like software people) can make much of their own tooling in their native media. Nothing I've seen on youtube is a better example of that than Matthias Wandel. Need to make a bandsaw out of wood? Here, hold my beer. The Pantorouter... really? Even dust collection! This makes wooden stuff out of wooden stuff out of wooden stuff. Three levels deep, inception style.
Absolutely not. I suspect that the folks in admissions had more than enough 800's (from all walks of life) to choose from admission-wise. Their balancing act was trying to offer competitive scholarship and aid packages that would seduce the right mix of kids into taking their admission offer over the other admission offers they received.
Not an easy task, but an important one!
600's (literally or metaphorically) were a non-starter. Those kids got chewed up and spit out. Putting a perfectly innocent, well-meaning, ambitious high-school grad in that position was not a desirable outcome for anyone.
I'm glad this distinction got teased out. I find that it rarely does.
When people discuss the merits of Diversity (capital D), the implication is that they are referring to the value of bringing in people from a variety of walks of life that might bring with them a variety and breadth of unique/disparate experiences to bear and to share. That is not often the case. People want to SEE photographic diversity. Unfortunately, varieties of experiences do not always correlate with varieties of skin color or ethnicity (though, they certainly can).
For example, my undergrad institution (a private, competitive engineering school) had a diversity policy that manifested itself in the student body. We had very few "under-represented minorities." The ones we did have were overwhelmingly international and wealthy.
It's important to point out that these folks DID bring diversity to the cohort, but it was because they were international, not because they had a certain color of skin. Their wealth actually made them the opposite of diverse economically-speaking. Still, they would always get photographed for the website, brochures, and other marketing material... The brochure would make you think that our school was a bustling melting pot of kids from Philadelphia, Compton, or the south side of Chicago when in fact these folks were kids of Latin American oligarchs and African quasi-royalty.
The school needed ACTUAL kids from the south side of Chicago to be able to REALLY check the economic diversity box (and poor white trash like me, of course).
In short, economic diversity is no less important than racial diversity. At least for issues where the sharing of experiences and perspectives is the goal, I think it represents a higher bar than brochure-diversity.
I read an article a while back, probably a couple of years (sorry, I can't find/cite). The observation in the article paints this "theft" in what they perceived to be a cultural distinction...
Specifically, in the US (and the west, more broadly) we ascribe a great deal of value to figuring out "what" to do commercially and "how" to do it technically. Most of our energy around IP are wrapped around this value and defending it.
The article had observed that for the Chinese, there was no additional value ascribed to the people or groups that paved that path, but rather that there was perceived merit/value in "doing" those things better. To use an example, identifying the market and technology and usage trends to develop a valuable product is no more important or meritorious than merely seeing/understanding that product and fast-following with some other advantage. And further, there is nothing inherently negative about re-creating someone else's work for personal benefit, after all, you still need to do the work of "doing" it.
One of the conclusions drawn was that this lack of value around creativity and direct inventorship makes the Chinese a super formidable second place in many arenas but without the skills or cultural DNA to actually take the lead or be the expeditionary force... There are pros and cons to all of that (and some pretty rebuttable presumptions in the analysis) but I thought it was an interesting take that (if valid) sheds light on what we have seen, are seeing, and will continue to see.
In all likelihood, the engineer meant "that approach/idea/decision has risks we should consider." The VP likely heard "you are suggesting something wrong/dangerous/ignorant."
A nuance here is that the engineer probably implied that "(We should be) careful (in our consideration)" and the VP perceived "(You need to be) careful (and you don't seem to be)"