Linux machines?
Because on my Linux machines, once it's been updated, I can not open a new tab, it'll tell me to frig off and restart. I can click links in existing tabs, and might've been possible to enter a new URL in an existing tab, I don't recall exactly.
It's not that they take responsibility, but rather in extreme circumstances they take the plunge and resign, or they're fired. So the company can say they're turning a new leaf
Examples from a quick search:
Hank McKinnell, CEO of Pfizer, received a US$188 million severance package after his resignation, even after a 44% decline in the company’s stock value since he took over in 2001.
Jeff Smisek, the former CEO of United Airlines, received a separation payment of $4.875 million in cash along with additional equity awards and other benefits for a total of close to $37 million.
United was in the middle of a corruption scandal and of course he took the fall, but I'm 100% sure he wasn't acting alone.
Shady companies are always gonna be shady. But they'll oust a CEO every now and then to pretend like they're gonna change.
That helps, but largely the boards consist of major shareholders, or people that the shareholders have elected to be there.
The board, representing the shareholders, needs to make sure the company maximizes shareholder value above all else. They steer the company in very broad strokes. But if the company does something illegal or highly unpopular, the board members want themselves, the shareholders and the company in general to be as insulated as possible. So the CEO is a sacrificial lamb who either resigns or is fired, and takes the golden parachute. The idea is that the CEO was at fault and everything's gonna be better now (no it's not lol)
This must be the 10th time I comment this on Lemmy and you might already know this, but:
The reason a CEO gets paid what he gets paid is not because of the value he adds to the company (as you pointed out, anyone could do the job), but because when the company fucks up (whether due to his decisions, or those of the board, or just anything, really), he takes the fall so the company can keep on doing whatever shady shit they're doing and the board can act like they had no idea what was going on.
I'd like to consensually test with her which one of us is overpowering the other.
Not gonna happen in a million years, but a man can dream.
I never said it doesn't happen. I said it's overblown.
Online, literally anything a man has ever said seems to be described as mansplaining now. Offline, I've barely heard anyone complain about it - only talking about car mechanics I believe. And I've got some people in my circles who are pretty vocal about gender dynamics issues.
The term literally is sexist because it implies it's only bad when men do it. These days it's used to describe any time a man explains anything. It's lost any meaning it may have had originally.
White knightism is sexism in its own right too, because it brings to the table the assumption that women are weaker and need protection, thus not equal to men,
Maybe it's just the people I know? Could even just be the upbringing in a formerly soviet nation, it used to be pretty socially conservative in many ways here. Younger people are starting to break out of that pattern luckily. All I know is, in my generation and older ones, on average, guys tend to be more loud and in your face, more likely to interrupt you while talking.
Bit of a difference between "mansplaining" and the other terms in that the other terms mention the target of the action, leaving the actor ambiguous. Anyone could be anti-semitic or bash gay people. Mansplaining is a term specifically coined to say that only men can perform condescending infodumps. What's worse, nowadays it's often used just for men explaining things they're not sure if the other person knows. Some of us are also neurodivergent and have trouble picking up even fairly obvious social cues. I know it's a problem for me with ADHD and I know there's also "tism infodumps". Both disorders affect women too (and ADHD in women is underdiagnosed), but I've never heard "womansplaining" used as a term, nor do I think it would be appropriate. It'd be a hella sexist term.
I'm sure there's quite a few men out there who legitimately are so condescending, they feel they have to explain basic things to "dumb women". But I'm willing to bet most cases of "mansplaining" are some guy being an idiot and missing hints from the other party in the conversation, as well as just misjudging what is common knowledge and what isn't.
It doesn't help that women are just more polite and more likely to let you finish talking even when they know everything lol
Ideapad? Thinkpad keycaps look different IMO
I've personally got no problem talking to people or moving my own weight but if I've been on foot the whole day I'd rather sit down than stand in line
Being a CEO and being a shareholder have nothing to do with each other.
The truly rich, AKA the major shareholders, aren't going to bother with a job, unless running their own company (probably the one they're the major shareholder at).
Then the big institutional shareholders (Blackrock and the like) invest other people's money - people like you and me.
Only a minority of shareholders for any given company, are CEOs at other companies.
It's still a club for the ultra rich and we ain't in it. I'm just saying that your average CEO is set up to be a scapegoat for even richer and shadier people (while still very much not being one of us working class citizens)