I'm no MS lover, but this is the same guy that increased the MS share price tenfold.
Finish your thought. MS share price tenfold - what do you conclude from what? What did you want to say?
Readit Newsekjhgkejhgk commented on Welcome to the Room: A lesson in leadership by Satya Nadella jsnover.com/blog/2026/02/... · Posted by u/dnw
ekjhgkejhgk commented on Welcome to the Room: A lesson in leadership by Satya Nadella jsnover.com/blog/2026/02/... · Posted by u/dnw
Some of that is extremely bad advice and explains why MS is in the pickle it’s in.
“Don’t come whining that you don’t have the resources you need. We’ve done our homework. We’ve evaluated the portfolio, considered the opportunities and allocated our available resources to those opportunities. That is what you have to work with.”
Right out of the gate they’re telling you that your judgment is irrelevant to the scope of the problem. Immediately the chances of success are reduced quite a bit because the SME is not trusted to help craft the terms of engagement. If you aren’t at the table to help draft the terms of engagement, to help define the scope and to help define the resources needed, you’re always going to be working from someone else’s plan. Success is defined by not by your ability to execute, but someone else’s ability to plan. They’re telling you that you may be the SME, but they’re the ones who will be making the judgement calls. Politics has risen above engineering and above business strategy.
“You only have 2 controls: 1) The clarity, culture, and energy you give your teams ; and 2) Resource allocation .”
Except we’ve determined you don’t get much of a say in resource allocation, they’ve allocated the resources you get. If you determine the way to win with the plan you were given is to change that, you have to convince other people why their planning was wrong, and that’s rarely easy.
And you, as a leader, have far more than “clarity, culture, and energy”, too.
This shows that some of the major flaws that drove me out of a cushy role in MS in 2004 are still there today. I think Nadella is a better leader than Ballmer in knowing how to respond to markets, but this speech explains to me with crystal clarity why the AI push has gone so poorly. They think they can still dictate the terms of engagement with the market.
I completely disagree with you.
Anyone could solve every problem in the world, if only they had the resources. However, it's also an extremely convenient and versatile excuse. I think removing this excuse is more important than any downside you mention.
At my company I see people hiding behind the "I don't have the resources" excuse literally several times a day.
ekjhgkejhgk commented on Oregon raised spending by 80%, math scores dropped educationnext.org/hard-le... · Posted by u/grantpitt
Politics and ideologies aside, just trying to be rational....
Can someone better informed about these metrics (the NAEP specifically) comment: how exactly do we know that we're comparing the same thing each year? Is the NAEP based off answering the same questions every year? Because if it's just like "average exam result" - those can change a lot. And can in fact trend, meaning change in the same direction for several years (e.g. becoming harder, becoming easier)
Deleted Comment
ekjhgkejhgk commented on TikTok's 'addictive design' found to be illegal in Europe nytimes.com/2026/02/06/bu... · Posted by u/thm
People are way too comfortable banning things these days. This is where the term 'nanny state' comes from. A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives, who cares we know better.
The thing is, people who live in Europe actually like that companies aren't allowed take advantage of people in every way concievable.
I have an ideia, if you don't like regulation that protects people why don't you fuck off to your own country and advocate for it in whatever dystopian hellhole you came from?
Dead Comment
As someone else pointed out, the comment originally said that the US was doing the same thing as Iran before it was edited.
Ok, when you edit your comment I'll edit mine.
>> From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
No, I don't agree. What is Israel is doing is WAY past the "disproportionate" conversation. For one, Israel's targets have nothing to do with the people who attacked Israel, other than they come from the same geographical area. It's like saying "bombing Italy is a disproportionate response to Luigi Mangione assassinating someone".
Disproportionate would be if they caught the October 7 terrorists and their collaborators, and instead of arresting them killed them. If that was what happened, I wouldn't be morally against it.
> You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack?
How on earth did you get that from my comment? Can you think of a more charitable way to interpret what I said?
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
So you're not saying that what Israel is doing is less bad due to the fact that it was attacked? So what are you saying then?
I guess that no, I can't find a more charitable way to interpret what you said.
300,000? Can you cite something for that?
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
> Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?