It's the same thing. Just the latter implies you're identifying an assumption or two as variable and modeling outcomes of some of them changing. They're all forecasts. To argue otherwise is semantic pedantry.
I have the inverse story; factory workers picketing outside. First day the owner of the company walks up to them and explains: this company is worth $X. The terrain (land) it occupies is worth $10X. Please get back to work.
That signals an extraordinarily inefficient use of land.
With land that valuable, and a land value tax/higher property taxes he'd have been run out of business years ago and replaced by one or more economically efficient companies.
Yes, but his statement that the land is worth 10X doesn't have to be true to be effective leverage in negotiation. Perception is everything, and casually dropping a "Eh, I don't really need you", and turning your back on a negotiation is often amazingly effective.
Yes, that's why he told them this - he prefers to be in business with employees. He's just telling them their negotiating position is very very weak, and their strike has no value.
I started reading drew when he had a Gemini capsule. He ditched it, I was disappointed, but I understand why. I still read everything I come across.
I didn't even realize he was the maintainer of sway, I was reading his stuff while using his software and didn't even know it! Try out sway, it's fantastic.
Voicing dissatisfying as part of a mass popular outrage is a good way to get rules changed. Leaving a company also achieves that, but is a little more drastic.
I've long-considered that social media outrage, even something tech-specific like blog articles getting passed around on HN, is sadly sometimes the most effective form of customer service on these huge platforms that have mostly automated support:
As far as it being commoditized, I think it might work a little differently in examples like the OP where the outraged people is the workforce itself. It's a more focused audience.
If you don’t like it, there’s the door? That’s a terrible solution to a problem. The my way or the highway approach assumes there is no room for growth or understanding of other positions. This is the root of no-compromise.
