Note that Employees were not a party to the merger agreement.
Does an acquisition FAQ bind the company? I believe the argument is that it was effectively an offer to employees to stick around, and employees who did so effectively accepted the offer, at the cost of other opportunities in the market, and hence this was a binding contract. This doesn't seem so solid to me.
> I believe the argument is that it was effectively an offer to employees to stick around, and employees who did so effectively accepted the offer, at the cost of other opportunities in the market, and hence this was a binding contract. This doesn't seem so solid to me.
That's established law, it's the only way to hold companies to any of their promises.
If "in the park" is meant as an analogy for "on the platform" in content moderation, then curiously enough Twitter suspended @RealDonaldTrump for off-park action (Jan 6).
Sure, but that team may have N engineers and those VPs may have N teams, so that doesn't seem so ludicrous for a 7000 person company. Or even 3500 person company by EOD. Certainly in my company there's about a 200:1 engineer:VP engineering ratio, so pointing out every engineer reports to a VP is kind of a meaningless statement
And there are also finance people, HR people, sales, etc. people. The company is far from entirely engineers, their managers, and the managers of their managers.
Indeed - though I think this is a mathematical philosophy about theories.
"Genius" is a nice word choice to emphasize your point - it refers to some kind of distinct spirit that happens to inspire the person, not the person themself. (A little like writing vs typing.)
Business data / process flow is so stable compared to a software implementation that having quality documentation pays dividends again and again. If you could document only one thing, document the business data flow.
