Further proof it's a pure commodity service and customer satisfaction is the most important metric for them to measure.

Yes. And why didn't he explain how he turned the table on his high school bullies. Odd to include that psycho analysis and then leave out any details there.

If you read the article, it helped ensure that no drivers were scamming them by creating repeat fake customer accounts to increase the payout bonus.

I'm not sure why any venture backed startup, in an area that has local talent, would want to deliberately go the remote workforce route. It hampers your ability to scale, hurts your future acquisition chances, creates and will lead to communication redudancy, and culture distractions. It rarely works out positively.

In short, while I am sure that there are some instances where it works well (eg Basecamp / 37signals), I'd expect that they are the exception to the norm.

Note: I did build a remote startup with incredibly talented people and after a lot of soul searching and time required them all to come join us locally (or helped them find a new job elsewhere). Hardest decision we made at the company and certainly the right one.

NOTE 2: the best remote recruiting tool we had was to handpick whole invited to work with us. We hung out on mailing lists and read potential employees blog posts to see what kind of amazing open source projects they were sharing with the world, before trying to individually recruit them.

No. He doesn't just think it. He donated a substantial amount of money to force his views on others.

It was a ballot initiative in 2008. We have a constitution to prevent the will of the majority violating the rights of a minority. Its too bad it was up to voters. But he still has a right to take a side without fear of economic retribution.

Economic retribution from the government the first amendment does not protect your rights with respect to things like keeping a job. If you call your boss an asshole to his face on a regular basis, you are going to be fired.

Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with the first amendment because they don't involve the government.

Liberals would not like it if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion. Don't use Firefox, fine. But actively lobbying to take away someone's livelihood is not a proportional response in this case.

I'm ignoring your partisan labelling/strawman/etc.

On the second point, that's why employers aren’t allowed to ask those questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).

Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes, people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business with them because of their opinions.

Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious. Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention). If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say, perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political view) then no.

@SolorNet Let me rephrase, would you be ok if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion?

> substantial

It was trivial amount of money for an $83MM campaign. It may signal which side of the issue he was on. It does not inform us of what he is thinking or his motivations.

I think the phrase you were looking for is "to persuade others to share his views". Nobody put a gun to anybody's head.

Just curious. What about when he was CTO? I agree his beliefs and actions are gross, but why were their no calls for him to resign sooner?

Since you ask me: a CEO is the public representative of the company. It's also their job to shape the company's directions and values.

Eich doesn't seem interested in shaping Mozilla's value to be anti-LGBT.

I am an atheist, but I am okay with theistic CEOs as long as they don't try to shape the company's value to be theistic. I do have a problem if CEO wants company-wide religious ceremony.

What about a theistic CEO who would found a campaign against atheistic marriage?

What about a theistic colleague who would fund a campaign against atheistic marriage? (More appropriate analogy would be someone who would fund the goal of establishing a national religion.) Will I refuse to work with such colleagues?

If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah as a CEO, but okay as a colleague, this doesn't seem to help depriving the campaign blah from being funded (as long as someone didn't plan to increase donation from increased remuneration as a CEO). If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah both as a CEO and a colleague, I am not sure I support that position.

The main point being, while setting company-wide policy is greatly helped by being CEO, funding campaigns is less so.

There were. People held their noses because techies are often disturbingly weird but this is tolerated as long as they're productive and as long as they don't explode too badly in public. And Eich is a genius techie.

No no guys Instagram also released direct messaging.

Props to them for understanding the benefit in competing with Snapchat. Kind of late in the game, but better late than never?

I'm disappointed for oculus that anyone bought them. They had a chance to lead the next generation of companies in revolutionising media... To BE the next Sony. Kudos to Facebook for snatching them up.

There is a theory that the rapid ascent to 45,000 feet was done to deprive the passengers of oxygen and incapacitate them.

From what I've read that theory is bullocks because 45k is still in the safety margins the plane was designed for.

Wikipedia puts the service ceiling at 43,100 ft (13,140 m).

I imagine it could surpass that though without depressurization.

I hope it works out. My personal rule to live by: Never hire someone you can't fire.

+1 to this. What if you need to fire your parent or spouse? Sure you might feel like you can do it, but for a whole lot of people the power dynamics and differentiating a personal relationship and professional one is tricky. I mean, I wouldn't write a blog post recommending this.

Couple quick scenarios come to mind:

"Why are you firing me?" "I need someone more qualified. You've done good work, It's not personal." "But I'm your mother. I changed your diapers and taught you right from wrong." ...

"Mom, my business failed. I have no money." "Well, you should have thought of that when you fired me." ...

"Well, you should have thought of that when you fired me."

perfect statement.. better to place mom or spouse in a company where you can give recommendation and have contacts not in our own shop, unless you are running coffeshop (OK I guess :)