"effective immediately" means either... he doesn't have a contract with a notice period, or he does and is willing to forfeit any benefit from it like share options, etc.
One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!), or Meta has offered him inducements > what he's walking away from.
Good way to burn a lot of bridges. He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
CEOs manage to fail upwards their entire career, I don't suspect this will be any different. Just some "nerds on a forum" who got annoyed with his personal decisions.
I think this is broadly true of leaders including lesser ones. It even seems true of roles like product manager.
The vast majority of projects seem to not meet their stated goals or KPIs or mission, be late, not follow remotely the planned path, etc. Whether blame falls on poor execution, poor planning, or overpromsing, those are precisely the things that chosen leaders are supposed to have been chosen to avoid—and what they would in theory fail downwards for. Unpredictable things do happen, but the regularity of these outcomes for projects (and products as a whole) means we're systematically choosing the wrong ones, there aren't enough capable ones (period), and/or that we shouldn't be org'd to need them in the first place. The last one is simply saying that if the environment is unpredictable enough that you can't plan well, then let's not spend time and money on planning. That in itself axes large chunks of the things product leaders do before work starts.
It makes iterating a more likely plan, but most teams and workstreams don't iterate too much. The iterating that sometimes is done is typically downstream of the plan, strategy, architecture that leadership leadershipped. They might do better without all the planning and overpromised timelines, which gut iterating. Iteration is only sort of a strategy anyhow (depends on what layer we're talking about when we say strategy). Iteration is what hedges a lack of vision.
New devs learn quickly that when the TPM over promises it's the devs job to take the fall when delivery is late, or kill themselves so the TPM can take credit.
> It even seems true of roles like product manager.
Yes, but there are valid reasons for this. Speaking as someone who is currently in Product, let me point out that a lot of larger efforts in large organizations are inherently risky. This is probably measurable, but generally nobody invests in doing so, rather than that we model it with approximations. When an executive decides on a strategy which has a large effort as a downstream outcome, there is some risk possible that it becomes impossible, or that it is possible but at 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x the cost/time which erodes its value. Success doesn't look like hitting an arbitrary timeline or budget, success looks like getting to an outcome that aligns with the objectives/goals of the strategy, in a timeline that doesn't torpedo the strategy, and in a way which results in an economic ROI.
I am generally considered pretty good in my current organization. I have been lauded often. I don't think any of the major initiatives I've worked on have been "on time", but in almost every case it was due to cross-organizational dependencies dragging things out, which is an inherent risk accounted for when doing anything large in a large organization. But every single one of those initiatives has resulted in a positive ROI in a manner timely enough to support the strategy.
From the perspective of the organization, that's a win. And a win is rewarded.
I imagine similar things can be seen at executive levels. Nobody is asking detailed execution questions about your strategy to determine if its a win or a loss, they're looking at the aggregate outcome. Did your strategy result in improved profitability or reduction of cost or increase in share price, or not? CEOs seem to fail upward even on those metrics, but other executive roles seem to be more accountable.
100% this. The CEO at my last company squandered hundreds of millions of investor funds, and now he's the CEO at another company taking on hundreds of millions in debt.
Another example: current CEO of Cerebras, is an SEC felon from a prior company (for cooking the books), and now he's CEO of a public company.
lemonade stands are staffed by 11 year olds and there can be one on every corner.
these stands do better than cerebras, which is an 11 year old deeply unprofitable company building a technology that no other company has bothered to try to even get close to replicating.
Cerebras got lucky with the ban on NVIDIA chips due to "security reasons" in the middle east, securing a massive deal with the UAE's sovereign fund. Of course, the leaders made a nice donation to the Trump crypto fund and coincidentally the ban on NVIDIA was lifted. That presented a danger for Cerebras, but they also pivoted almost entirely to an inference as a service company, maximizing tokens/sec metrics on a variety of open weight models. Then they landed the contract with OpenAI which has bought them another lifeline, and helped paper over the trail of fraud that delayed the S1 and IPO for a few years. Fascinating story indeed!
The problem with the pivot is that with only 44GB of memory, you can't run models unless you nerf them or you scale the hardware out horizontally, which takes up a lot of space, power and even more cost.
This is why their API has dumb limits on it. I'd estimate their $/tok cost around $4-5000/mtok based on hardware alone, which is insane. Sure, it is fast, but if it is heavily quanted, expensive, and can't scale, you're going to be in a world of pain.
yea this isn't "and another example just off the top of my head" - this guy co-founded seamicro then cerebras both pretty badass companies, he was a vp of marketing not ceo when the sec sued not just him but the entire executive team. trudging up 20 year old nonsense to try and punch a guy who legit deserves his success is bullshit
that's an automatic, prenegotiated sell off - calling that dumping is worse than calling the ceo a felon (at least one is technically true). are any of the big ai companies actually profitable? how has cerebras not gotten their chip right? they're the only company shipping wafer scale inference hardware, and they're shipping to the largest labs in the world. and it works - I use cerebras.ai the token rate is amazing
Sell offs don't have to happen, and $25m isn't some small amount of money.
> how has cerebras not gotten their chip right?
It doesn't scale, and won't ever be profitable. They pivoted to inference, which has the unfortunate (for them) side effect of also requiring a boat load of memory. This is why they just partnered with AMD to offload onto their chips.
it kind of is, relatively - sean might just be having a galaxy blackhole supercluster installed at home for all we know
> It doesn't scale .. They pivoted to inference
they have more options than non-wafer-scale solutions, the chips are going 3d and meanwhile they benefit from the same interconnect progress as the wholly memory-bound alternatives
> Ah, investor. Explains your responses.
physician heal thyself like your not out here tryna manifest your short
> they have more options than non-wafer-scale solutions, the chips are going 3d and meanwhile they benefit from the same interconnect progress as the wholly memory-bound alternatives
If I was a Cerebras shareholder, I would be LIVID right now. Seriously, what the hell. Insiders dumping stock: CFO, COO, accounting officer. AND NO INFO about losing GPT-6.1 Ultrafast.
I am sure this poignantly describes some CEOs, but my guess is this is probably empirically false on average.
(I'd ask some LLM to research it but the people who would be doubtful it's false significantly overlap with the people who distrust LLMs, so I'll just leave this as a random guess and nothing more.)
Feels like survivorship bias to me. CEO's fail up, except those that fail down, and the latter group aren't CEO's anymore, so they're less likely to show up in a sample.
It might be, but ... there are a lot of us who've seen this happen time and time again.
You have some startup, the founder is either young or doesn't want to do the CEO stuff. Things kind of eek along until the founder either steps aside or is removed by the board because a) it's time for a "grown-up" CEO; b) the CEO needs real sales experience; c) the founder overpromised and under-delivered; d) board/VC politics make it helpful to install a buddy as CEO; e) etc.
Then the CEO clock starts, typically they have 18 months to get lucky and hit their metrics. They do a lot of glad-handing. They hire "their team" of sales/marketing/etc people. They spend A LOT of money. And I mean A LOT. They talk about OKRs or SMRTs and KPIs. Out of nowhere a small army of project managers show up and try to tell you how to do your job and why you can't just talk to the <thing X> team directly but have to go through them for "efficiency" and "visibility."
In 3-6 months, senior engineering and R&D staff starts to leave. Whatever culture you had slips away. HR has "culture" meetings to "find the right company culture."
Sales/product can't sell and points the finger at R&D, maybe even for the right reasons. You OKR/KPI harder, but it doesn't matter because nothing addresses whatever the underlying problem is. Multiple senior people have pointed loudly to the problem and are ignored; they're often not managers so it's unclear if they were even heard.
At some point there are one or more rounds of layoffs; sometimes these are announced, sometimes it's just a gradual attrition.
Eventually the CEO clock runs out. They don't get lucky. Nothing they did helped, and some of it hurt. They collect their $1M severance, get to keep their stock, get 9-12 months of health insurance, and move on. In a year or two you hear about them joining a new company as CEO.
In the meantime, you've either moved on or have a new CEO with a new 18-month clock.
Perhaps CEOs are like NFL quarterbacks. They get all the credit when things go right and all the blame when they go wrong. In reality, they only have a limited number of levers to pull. Only extraordinary ones can overcome a bad team or a more hostile external environment.
I have been in a CEO replacement at my previous job. The owners were not happy with how things were going and replaced him. It was a decision only two or three people on the board participated in, even most of the board had no idea. In public, however, the only information that came out was that the CEO decided that his mission had been accomplished and it was time to look for new opportunities. These people never publicly tell the truth, what you hear on the news is what they want you to hear. The truth is almost certainly something completely different.
>He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
just need to spin the departure as being decisive and able to make tough decisions and he'll be back in the ceo seat in no time. especially if muse does well.
Yeah there’s a recruiting firm that literally hires ex-CEOs, puts them on the bench, then searches for their next “assignment”. They pay these people to golf until they place them.
There's multiple of these for executives. We tried using one at my last company to find a Sales exec (I think they would have been c-level). I was part of the interviewing process and what we found out was that we absolutely needed the ideas and practices these candidates had and simultaneously couldn't afford them at even half their asking price. It was a real conundrum and the company more or less failed 18 months later after management decided "doing nothing" was the right decision.
From experience I can say that people at level (particularly in sales) are very good at selling themselves - following through and delivering on those promises can be a very different thing.
I worked at one company hire a part-time CFO. Apparently part time execs are thing - late in their career and established and successfully to think about retiring, but don't want to get out of the game completely. Or to be e.g. a CFO for 3-4 startups at once. Not sure if that exists for sales, but I thought it was a neat idea.
Usually referred to as "fractional" roles - often used for senior advisors and executive board level posts, and for CxO roles that aren't central to the business (eg. CFO for non-finance companies, CTO/CIO for non-tech companies).
I wouldn't expect to see it for sales so much, as it would mess with the incentive structure and you kind of want your salesfolk to be "all in". Same goes for CEO or COO - they might have a small portfolio of non-exec board memberships (or similar) on the side, but it's hard to do a good job if your primary focus is split between multiple distinct businesses.
Yeah, Fractional C-levels are definitely a thing. I've served as a fractional CTO before. It can be really helpful for a small-to-mid size company trying to grow, but not nearly as effective as a full time exec doing the same tasks. Not having someone dedicating all of their time to understanding the company and the problems that need to be solved really limits how useful they can be.
Side note: I interviewed at Heidrick two weeks after 9/11. Manager said they had several employees quit on the spot. They offered terrible compensation so I passed.
> One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!)
From looking at the historical prices, it was down from $450 to $410 from a month ago, but still quite a bit from $235 six months ago, which is not anything close to what I'd consider "collapsed". Of course, he might have expected to continue going down, but that's going to be hard to measure in the short term given that announcements like this tend to affect the price directly in the short term (so far down to $338 today, close to double the loss of the entire previous month, although it seems far too soon to draw any conclusions).
Not that I think I'm saying anything that has any sort of bias, but it's probably reasonable in case anyone happens to read this and be suspicious: I did work at MongoDB for around five years (but haven't worked there for nearly as long), and from that stint I did have a sizable amount of shares, although as of last year I no longer hold any (for reasons completely unrelated to any personal opinions of the company; I had procrastinated way too much on making any sort of decision about how much to hold onto and for how long, so when my wife and I were buying a house, I decided it was time to just liquidate it and put it towards that instead).
The halo effect of being in the orbit of a product on the way up (as Muse appears to be) can offset almost any wrong. If Muse succeeds, he could get a CEO job anywhere he likes.
> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
I haven't had this experience I have found a lot of people who burnt the damn house down get hired in a company for a similar role in a few months especially CEOs and executives. Including large companies, I had someone I know in a c suite role who burnt a few other companies to join competitors now working in Tesla and a friend who burnt the bridges with supposedly half the SF who is still employed in a similar c-suite role in SF.
I really don't think people care unless you are a nobody sofware developer who tried to do the same perhaps, mostly because I can't prove it.
I think the most instructive example of this is Stephen Elop. He had ONE (1) successful business venture in the 90's and has done a horrible, laughably destructive job at everything he has ever touched since, and is still a CEO.
I just don’t understand the drive of these people to keep seeking further power and wealth when they already are richer than most people could ever imagine. Just go enjoy your life.
I don’t think these people can sit around and enjoy nature. Nobody rewards you for enjoying nature. All their life they have learned to climb the social ladder and have become good at it, they keep getting rewarded and praised for it, so that’s what they do and keep doing.
I think they’re missing some internal loop. Only external rewards satisfy them and they maximise for that. Stopping is not an option, because then the rewards stop coming and they have no idea how to exist when that happens.
He is 60 years old per wikipedia, this is likely his last rodeo. He has held board positions at Datadog, Athena Health, App Dynamics and other places in addition to his job at Mongo per LinkedIn. He was also at Mongo for 11 years.
It seems he is deeply connected, and probably approaching centimillionaire wealth.
Even if he is burning some bridges, its not going to affect his career at this point.
Edit: I looked at the current interim CEO's profile, not the outgoings, but its almost the same story- he is 55, been on other boards, has experience at director+ level since 1995 listed... this isn't going to hurt his career.
Or he told the board he’s resigning and they told him it’s immediate. It’s unlikely he resigned with zero notice so he could go the Meta the very next day.
> One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!), or Meta has offered him inducements > what he's walking away from.
Or there's something else scandalous happening and he wants to halt a bad look ASAP? I don't get why he or Meta couldn't have waited a couple weeks otherwise.
Interim is always a temp one though, and the fact it was the previous feels to me at least like them saying "Hey we need a favour" but I have no insight.
Workers are so much more militant and punitive than executives. It's not other executives that will try and hurt his career because he made a decision and went with it. It will be the worker bees that will attempt to hurt him 5 years down the road -- without even knowing the full story.
I don’t need to be in “the club”. Some people badly want that. Let them have it. Why would I have a problem with an executive changing jobs? Because he gets paid more money than me?
You missed the point. The reason behind the job hops is worth looking at closely. In retrospect, his time at MDB appears to launder a reputation that was shattered. Ending up at meta, therefore, seems to suit him well.
> AI makes it much less painful to move off of legacy and/or overpriced software.
Agreed. While DynamoDB != MongoDB, they are similar. I built a product on DynamoDB (Single-table-design) and while it was cool to find a way to make relational data work in DynamoDB, it was always a chore. New feature development was a huge PITA as was changing schema in any way. Sure, I might have been "holding it wrong" but after a weekend with Claude I migrated everything to Postgres and have been incredibly happy with that change something like 4-6 months later.
DynamoDB is really a fantastic product for the 99% percentile of workloads that need a particular kind of super low latency read operation at large scale.
The simplicity of using it and the lack of operations is really why most people tend to reach for it over a relational option, although over the years the burden of managing an RDMS has consistently gone down.
If your access patterns are fixed and not going to change, if your schema is pretty much solidified, then yes, I don't doubt that at all. But few things I've worked on have had such stable access patterns or schemas that they would benefit.
I enjoyed solving the challenges around using DynamoDB way more than I enjoyed using it on an ongoing basis.
I worked there from around a year before the IPO until around three and a half years after. The IPO price was around $24 if I remember correctly, but it's been floating in the $300-450 range for a while now. I have no clue what the future holds for it, but the IPO clearly did what it was intended to do.
We're early on in the LLM era, so I have hope that it can crush Oracle's business model. That said, your database is probably the hardest part of your application to migrate off of...
> your database is probably the hardest part of your application to migrate off of
Oracle has understood this for a long time. RDMBS have seen many generations of application tech stacks rise and fall. Other than C and unix they have outlasted almost everything.
I was thinking maybe investigations and prison time should crush Oracle's business model.
They bought Cerner early in the decade and have whittled it down to absolutely nothing. This is a problem when the software that Cerner sold was EMRs and I have people who used to work there telling me that the perioperative and anesthesia suites now have one person working on them, and no one's fixing issues.
This is mostly an artifact of their bonkers hyperscaler build up. The growth in their RDBMS has got to be 0 or negative, but existing customers are locked in tight imo.
Mongo’s biggest sell was it increases developer productivity so backlogs were burned down faster and managers all benefited.
AI greatly removes that differentiator. AI doesn’t care if it needs schemas or if there’s an idiomatic driver for Python or Node. Even schema changes aren’t an issue and most databases support complex data anyways.
i think infra software will be just fine. ai isnt going to implement a saas-database. and why would anybody migrate of mongodb, just to put their business data elsewhere?
it's end user software that's absolutely getting crushed.
There’s some weirdness with the UFC’s struggle at the time.
The Fertitta brothers are who actually bought it. Before owning the UFC, Lorenzo Fertitta was on (maybe the head?) of the Nevada State Athletic Commission- the very body who were refusing to sanction UFC events at the time, and the most important governing body in the combat sports world.
Obviously the UFC was hurting bad at that time since they couldn’t be sanctioned, were getting booted from arenas they booked, and were getting dropped by Pay Per View carriers. This decimated their value and the Fertittas scooped up the company for a song.
All of a sudden, now that they owned it, the sanctioning bodies agreed on a set of unified MMA rules, the UFC was re-sanctioned, and they started selling PPVs again.
It was actually quite a success from the very beginning. Their troubles were likely imposed on them by their prospective buyers in order to get the sale done, and all they and Dana White did really were take their foot off the company’s neck.
Agree with most of this but they do deserve credit for the lift off that the UFC saw after the Ultimate Fighter. That was a legit cultural phenomenon for certain demos at the time. Without that, things could have have gone very, very differently.
You may wish to read the thread more carefully, because you are mistaken. If after carefully rereading the thread you still believe you are correct, please explain exactly what part of this sentence:
> “And Zuck’s sudden interest in MMA/boxing/Jiu Jitsu as part of his “alpha male” rebranding”
equates general interest in fitness with being an “alpha male”. Because to me it is pretty clearly referring to the interest in combat sports, not fitness.
That was part of it, back in the early 2000s when people considered MMA "human cockfighting" (but bizarrely, boxing was OK) Trump let the events go on at his venues, however Dana is a pretty formidable businessman regardless of the connection to Trump.
No one has actually said that Dana White is a bad business man. It's just very difficult to believe that's the reason he was appointed to the board of a social media company on the same day that Donald Trump was inaugurated. If he was so consequential why wasn't he named to the board on Jan 7th 2021? I think we know why.
There's been a rightward shift in tech and culture (eg, children identify much less as transger and bisexual than a few years ago), it's likely Facebook is aligning with that.
Zuck spends billions on funding for left aligned causes while spending basically nothing on the reverse. He's a chameleon that merely takes the appearance of a centrist when need be. The money doesn't lie though.
Trump and Dana are close, and when Trump got re-elected, Dana was suddenly added to the Meta board as I think he was seen as a way to influence the Trump administration.
Same as how Clegg was brought in when the EU were on meta's case.
Isn't MongoDB relatively stable? I can't think of why it would need any particular CEO, and an executive moving to a company that burns money for fun doesn't say much about their previous job. So why the huge stock drop?
Probably just because it reminded everybody that MongoDB exists as a corporate entity and everybody is re-evaluating investment in "Open Core" products where the paid value-add is consultancy because learning to us the product is so difficult, since LLMs for all their faults are good at "how do I use this hard-to-learn tool?"
"Hey the MongoDB guy left, is MongoDB okay?.... wait, no, of course it isn't. It's in that space that is completely screwed."
MongoDB's net profit margin has been improving significantly over the last 5 years, increasing from -35% to +2%. This makes the P/E ratio not a very reliable lens to value the stock, vs using P/E ratios to compare mature companies that have relatively stable net profit margins.
To crudely estimate a fundamental valuation for MongoDB as a discounted sequence of future earnings, we'd need some understanding of the main factors that are driving this change in the net profit margin (over the next 5 years do we expect those factors to persist? to decay? to accelerate?), some modelling assumptions & forecasts for how they'll evolve over the next decade or two, and a discount factor.
Out of curiosity, I bashed together a naive NPV valuation, in complete ignorance of MongoDB's underlying business.
Completely unjustified modelling assumptions: suppose MongoDB can grow revenue at +20% / year for 5 years, then +5% / year for the next 5, then hitting a steady state +2.5% / year revenue growth; MongoDB grows net profit margin by +5% every year until hitting a 25% net profit margin, where it tops out; discount factor of 9.5% (= 5% risk free rate + 4.5% equity risk premium); no change in number of shares outstanding (perhaps optimistic, given they issued a bunch of stock within the last 5 years). Projecting this out 20 years & then using a 20x P/E valuation multiple at year 20 for the terminal value gives us an NPV estimate of the value at about $290 / share.
So if you believe MongoDB's business will do about that well, with your fundamental valuation investor hat on you could consider buying some stock if it were offered at, say, half the current market price or less -- assuming there isn't anything more attractive to invest in.
If you believe MongoDB's revenue growth & improvement in net profit margin will be much stronger over the next decade, maybe you'd be comfortable buying closer to the current market price.
(I don't hold any MongoDB stock & find it hard to stomach investing in growth companies vs companies that are more mature & easier to understand, but I appreciate that to value growth stocks you're not going to have much luck using P/B or P/E ratios)
If I hear "they" are foreign" I'm capable of any or all of the following as situationally relevant:
* deciding if singular or plural is relevant based on the antecedent.
* deciding if singular or plural is relevant based on other context.
* deciding if the singular or plural actually meaninfully changes the meaning of the statement within it's context and not worrying about if it doesn't.
* in the vanishingly rare cases where it's meaningful, contextually unclear, and I am still unsure, I can ask.
I may be an imbecile, but fortunately it takes only a minuscule amount of mental power to handle all this. English has a lot of redundancies and deducing from context is built into the language.
So when hear a simple snippet "they are foreign" I assume either it will become clear from further context, or it doesn't matter how many people "they" refers to since someone is having a tantrum about pronoun usage.
Perhaps what's really bothering you isn't that I pointed out the historicity of a common, centuries-old pattern in the English language, but rather that someone missed naptime and is grumpy.
Not really, "they" has been used to refer to a singular gender neutral subject for way longer than you've been alive. Whether it refers to plural or singular subject, and often who it refers to, is all pulled from the context of the story.
No, no it hasn't. The first time I heard it was about 20 years ago. Its annoying and intentionally confusing. People used the singular pronouns before that and just gendered them when that provided clarity. The gender neutral singular pronoun in English is 'it'. I get that you think the world was created when you were born but that's just not the case and all you are doing is making older people not trust your judgement.
PS Communication normally is about clarity. This type of intentionally confusing change in grammar is straight out of Bolshevik propaganda. Just like the phrase "politically correct" which literally means its wrong but I will have the state use violence against you if you point out that its wrong.
Here's my source[0], certainly I doubt all of society in the 1300s designed a word to intentionally confuse you 700 years later. But feel free to provide your sources.
Just because you heard it 20 years ago, does not mean that it was not used before.
In addition, "it" is not used for people. Yes, it is a gender neutral pronoun, but would be considered very offensive if you refer to a person by "it". The only example where you can use it usually is a baby whose name and/or sex is not known, often prior to them being born.
The phrase "politically correct" mostly only used by "anti-woke" snowflakes who believe they are better than those who tell others to leave non-binary folks alone, yet at the same time will rage all day just because some said that they're a "they" or some silly little thing. As if they've got nothing else to do in life but get angry at someone for having a preferring on how they want to be referred to.
Also implying that the natural evolution of the English language is some form of propaganda is wild to me. The language is essentially an evolution of German, with heavy influence from Roman/French and Old Norse. Saying that it is propaganda is like saying there's been some psyops by millions of people happening over centuries to mislead millions of other people.
The only correct thing you've said is "communication normally is about clarity". Honestly, to me, it feels like that hasn't really worked on you. You're certainly not clear about the history of the English language.
> if you hear "they are foreign" you don't think its multiple people?
This is almost never ambiguous within context. I blame the outrage on illiteracy. If you don't read a lot, even a simple turn of phrase or grammatical ambiguity could be anxiety inducing.
I recently took my app off of Mongo Atlas because I was tired of dealing with charges that caught me off guard. I was tired of feeling like I was getting nickel and dimed over every little thing.
I ended up migrating everything to DigitalOcean's managed database for 1/3 the price. Less headache, better performance, and less panic and anger.
One interpretation is that senior leadership (e.g. CEO) matters a lot. But it flies against the idea that CEOs are overpaid. From a quick search, it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions. Perhaps he would not have left if he had a higher pay, more in line with the value the market ascribes to him.
However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?
> However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?
Judging by your recent comments, you seem to have an axe to grind with people who are "upset about CEO pay" and I don't think it's possible to convince you to look any things from any other angle.
A CEO abruptly resigning is read by the market as a signal. Unless you think this person is ~$6.5B more valuable than any potential replacement, the full quantity of the loss cannot be ascribed to the value he provides as an employee.
>it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions.
this same things can happen with any employee at any company and does not bolster your argument.
a $10/hr worker flipping burgers can take actions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. burger king foot lettuce guy probably cost the company millions.
i could cause millions of dollars in damage this afternoon (i am not paid millions).
the point is that the amount of money you make is not really tied to the amount of many you can cause the company to lose (on purpose, by accident, by departure, etc.).
or, in other words, looking at the 6B loss and working backwards to say that the CEO was underpaid at 52MM is nonsensical
I think it's a pretty clear counterfactual. Someone works there company is worth X. If he doesn't work there, what would the company be worth? Note that the role itself doesn't go away, it will get replaced, but the difference in market value is his worth to the company compared to a median CEO.
It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business. It's not a moral worth, it's just a market value as perceived by the market. In other words, a rational investor would gladly pay the CEO $1b for him not to leave and save $6b in market cap. So by definition he must be worth at least that much.
>It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business.
there's many explanations as to why the stock dropped the amount it did. one of the least likely was that desai's leadership is worth billions of dollars. it has nothing to do with "icky".
a rational investor would not want desai to receive a ~20x raise to stay, either. i have no idea why you think they would.
This was sudden very large drop, coincided exactly with announcement CEO would be leaving.
MongoDB reaffirmed both Q3 and full-year FY2027 guidance this morning.
There was no revenue warning, earnings revision, or deterioration disclosed alongside Desai’s departure.
There was no major analyst downgrade today driving the move. In fact, Citizens maintained its Buy rating and $519 target.
There's literally no other reason I can reasonably think of for the large stock drop apart from his departure. So I think you're stretching here. You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.
Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much
His departure causing a drop does not mean he was worth that drop. Investors think his departure signals internal issues and are trading based off that.
>You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.
you keep saying this, but you have literally no idea who i am or what my morals are. perhaps you should not speak so confidently about things you know nothing about.
i dont find anything "icky", i just disagree with you.
>Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much
you can't make up a random number then use that made up number as "validation" for your point.
One has to imagine that the op is a ceo himself. They are just not engaging with any of these arguments in good faith - strawmanning and then attacking personally
If a Burger Flipper leaves the company, it costs them exactly the amount of Burgers they fell short of making (to meet the demand) till they find the replacement burger flipper and they are exactly paid that much.
Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much
>Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much
yes, that's my point.
and it absolutely extends to unexpectedly leaving. there have been plenty of times in my career that simply leaving without notice would have cost my company many times my salary.
Another reading is this: CEOs don't quit without notice [1], it's bad form and bad for both the company and for the reputation of the person leaving. Regardless of the value he as an individual was providing it speaks to substantial disfunction in the overall leadership of the company and a major lack of confidence from the person who presumably had the best idea of how the company was doing on the whole. The market suddenly learning those things resulted in a substantial market correction. It doesn't really matter whether he was a particularly good or bad CEO; the situation would indicate something is majorly wrong in either case.
1: Obviously exceptions will exist for unexpected major life events, etc.
You made the assumption that it was fairly valued before and the loss was a "true" loss.
But possible it could have been over-valued before, unbeknownst to low-information external investors. After all, right now it as a PE of 450+. (Google PE is 17, Meta PE is 27, Tesla PE is 330)
The stock dropping on CEO departure had nothing to do with his personal performance, and everything to do with the information that he revealed on the way out. Why would the CEO leave a rising and successful company on the verge of innovation?
And thus tying it back to pay - people should be paid based on their output and their personal performance, not based on simply serving as a signal which any warm body can do. That said, I don't think truly amazing CEOs are overpaid, e.g. steve jobs of old.
How much of the drop do you think is due to the bearish nature of ceo departure? One would have to assume that if the company was going to go gangbusters the ceo would stay.
In short: is it this particular CEO who is that valuable? Should I pay 100m to some Joe off the street since I know they will stay put?
30m unvested at what price? If you think it’s going to 2x, then it’s worth 60m. Maybe zuck paid an unrealistic multiple - 20x, but out side of that still a bearish signal
Just because the market reacts to a piece of information to the tune of 6B, doesn't mean the guy is providing 6b of value. It's just a piece of information and the market reacts to what it may or may not mean. Any other goober with an MBA in that role who quits with no notice may induce the same market reaction, even if they were a shit ceo.
If you think his departure won't impact the company, it looks like you're smarter than other investors and you get to buy MongoDB at a 25% discount. Also there's a job opening at the top spot, although you may be better suited as an investor with this kind of insight.
Yeah this op keeps skipping this point… like this is everyone’s argument boiled down and he just keeps saying well market says he’s valuable. No, market says his departure is indicative of real price being XXm lower than previous, it could have little to do with his value directly
Er, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at, but the stop market drop was not because of his value-add to the company, it was because of the signal it sends by the CEO quitting.
So… I guess you could make an argument that that merits higher pay, but it'd be saying it's due to his blackmail power.
> However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?
I would argue that at most he's a signal about company value that people reacted to. Maybe the company lost 6 billion dollars in underlying value, but it wasn't from the CEO change itself.
ole Zuck just buying what he wants - for any price, cause that is what the richest in the world can do? Also using the market cap / paper valuation isn't aligned with 'actual value' imo.
Sure: Destructive actions have a lower bar than constructive ones.
My company doesn't pay me millions, but I were motivated to do so, I could probably cost my company millions. Similar principle here: regardless of whether the CEO is any good, simply by virtue of their position they can tank the stock by making wild moves that undermine confidence.
Imagine a generic human blob CEO with minimal VORP[0], you could swap him out with anyone else in the organisation and get the same results. But if he gets on twitter and announces, "This company is trash and I'm leaving this trash fire," he's going to cost them millions.
MongoDB is not a bad database, it is not my first immediate choice for everything, but it is very easy to get into, super easy to prototype with. My biggest pet peeve is how it handled indexes, shoves it all into memory. That and how people use it sometimes bewilders me.
Two fun facts: ObjectID's are like Discord snowflakes: you can get a timestamp of when they were generated, you can also generate them client side, so you can filter items in a collection by when they were created.
The other one, that I always enjoyed is, you can take an existing ObjectId, and reinsert it into another document, you dont have to nest all your data, you can go kinda sorta relational about it.
Used it at a previous job, the first project could have just used a SQL db but because the person who made the intial one tried to do NoSQL using something in the cloud, they migrated it to MongoDB to keep it simple and consistent. The second project, well, we really discovered all the limits if you aren't Google with unlimited server memory available, like indexing as I mentioned. MongoDB pipelines are probably my favorite feature on the other hand.
Yeah, I wouldnt recommend doing MongoDB for EVERYTHING, but when you're using it for very specific things, you dont have to throw away everything you're already familiar with is all I was saying.
Curious to know what does actually scale according to your opinion (if not postgres) and what is the scale that we are talking about when mentioning some of the largest databases ever built (I hope you can talk more about it!)
There seems to be many many options at attempting/trying to scale postgresql, what are your opinions of them?
Also It is my sort of opinion that you really have a good problem if postgresql isn't working you because of the problem of scale and that, evaluation of other problems become much easier but in general, its easier to start with postgresql.
(Personally, I use sqlite + golang static binaries on a 500mb/1gb ram server, so I can't comment too much on the scale part as I am focused much more on simplicity yet I admire how aside from sqlite (which is also more scalable than people think!) postgresql is almost always good enough in my opinion though I can be wrong and I usually am)
People do hate on it but MySQL is what I would reach for when needing tons of scale. Its correctness issues about type conversions are super well documented at this point and Innodb is really good at ingesting tons of data. There's also a lot of talent you can hire if you need exotic setup.
Please elaborate more instead of just "trust me" it would be nice to understand where this comes from. I'm sure back some years people would have said the same about MySQL, yet YouTube used the heck out of MySQL, they made an entire Go based runtime on top of it to scale MySQL.
You can scale nearly anything if you know what you're doing.
MongoDB's biggest weakness was its default settings, which made it insecure and very vulnerable to data consistency failures. An absolute nightmare for PR. It's not perfect, but it's comparable to other NoSQL databases now.
Their biggest weakness was that their marketing promised way, way more than they could deliver.
Aphyr's original examination [0] took them to task so much so that I always think of it as the start of the "end", at least of the "web scale" obsession.
MongoDB is a great db for agentic workloads to be honest. Thats probably why they are still seeing growth. They also have some very good embedding models. They should really make those available over their own API though.
They probably should look into JEV style models as well might make sense for automatic classification of data.
MongoDB is a natural choice if you are working with denormalized deeply hierarchical data structure like JSON. It is also natural to JavaScript devs since the shell itself is JavaScript. This makes it super effective on modern web framework although I recently switched to Drizzle
Demis Hassabis decided not to sell DeepMind to Facebook after testing Mark Zuckerberg at dinner and realizing Zuckerberg sounded "Equally Excited" about every tech trend brought up.
Data is at the heart of AI training. Good data makes good models. Their chief AI officer understood this, which is why Facebook went crazy about collecting data. And it worked. Muse Spark is really good for its price.
And I'm pretty sure this "29-30 year old who was merely acquihired" probably knows more than these veteran/boomer execs about how to execute a consumer AI product strategy.
"Chief AI officer" does not mean he leads AI research efforts, its just a title. He just takes care of hiring and product direction, both of which I'd say hes done well in. They obviously have actual researchers working on models.
I'd go as far as to say Alexandr Wang can do this better than most other leaders. Young people should be in charge of products, they generally have a better sense of what resonates with consumers, and Meta is a consumer company at the end of the day.
I've run out of fingers for the amount of people in my network that are now leading/head of AI xyz at their employers yet have little to no understanding of AI beyond asking ChatGPT simple questions.
Yeah, glancing at headlines this is basically "MongoDB is a company with a lot of experience selling to enterprise clients (and by extension the CEO knows how to run such a company), Meta wants to sell enterprise clients their AI offerings".
Which is like, not as weird as most AI company headlines, to be honest?
Not just that, they're also kinda similar value proposition, in that it's "holy crap look how fast you can develop code if you just ignore all of the longer-term risks you're creating".
Both AI and Mongo can be used for good and quality code but that's not how they get sales.
"Effective immediately" is harsh even though perfectly legal. Does this mean nobody knew and it was a "Surprise!!!"? Extremely callous if that's the case, there is got to be more to the story.
It looks like that phrase was removed from the article, but that is standard for C-level jobs. When you resign, you're shown the door immediately. The same thing happened with Marissa Mayer when she left Google during a phone call. Call was ended and her accesses terminated. Can't risk any additional trade secrets leaving.
> It looks like that phrase was removed from the article, but that is standard for C-level jobs.
Isn't the standard they get a made up advisor role for some months? Though usually that involves the ex-C-level to understand the implicit expectation of not starting immediately at the next place.
MongoDB does seem to be in a rough spot. Their pitch is an easier to get started with database, which longer term gives you problems and higher costs. And since we all have AI agents, why would you select that for any use case?
Not to mention it is a painful database to work with... Doc DBs were simple 15+ years ago, but turns out most data is relational and it's just simpler to use postgres.
MongoDB and its hype burned many, many people back in the day. It's hard to overstate how much it used to suck ass. At one point MongoDB client libraries would report that writes succeeded even if your box had no internet connection, that's how bad it was.
The Mongo fans claim "no really, it's good now", but I was one of the people burned so badly that I'll never touch it with a ten-foot pole again for as long as I live. I assume this toxic reputation is a big part of the problem.
Likely anything that goes beyond missing out on compensation (ex: unvested RSUs) or even clawing back some comp would violate labor laws. CEOs are still employees, and legislation regulating employer-employee relations trumps all contracts.
A lot of these labor laws get less protective for higher-ranked people in a company, whether it be due to thresholds based on compensation or explicit carve-outs for executives/board members. It varies a lot from place to place.
In the US, there is only one labor law that is different for execs and high paid employees and that is overtime rules. Fiduciary duty does govern how a director or officer behaves while in the role, loyalty, no self-dealing, no stealing corporate opportunities etc. It doesn't oblige them to stay or dictate how they must leave.
In US and English law, "specific performance", so a court ordering you to do what you promised, isn't available for personal service contracts. In the US that's reinforced by the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. So even if a CEO signed a contract promising 6 months notice and a smooth handover, the company can't make them do it, they can only enforce any financial penalties that are contracted.
There are many many instances where the CEO is not an employee, but they operate via their own legal entity. To be honest I don't know how this works at larger companies.
I'd never heard of this. It turns out it is very rare for publicly traded companies [1]. In these cases, I would guess it comes down to contract terms. But again, it's not as though the law would compel an individual to continue working at a company. It would just come down to what the contracts say, and, potentially, how the courts interpret those contracts in the event of a lawsuit.
[1] Examples I found: Worksport Ltd., Exicure, Inc., Rainmaker Worldwide Inc., and Acorn Energy, Inc.
Yes, CEOs pay taxes on income. The only way around that is to structure the compensation so it's not income, and the IRS probably has tried to prevent that as much as possible. I'm not a tax or HR expert but I'd think unrealized gains on stock compensation might not be. Deferred compensation might not be, until it's actually paid.
Yeah, notice periods are typical at that level even in the USA where they're not often used for the rank and file. A star candidate may have had sufficient leverage to negotiate them away, but I don't expect that to have been the case here.
Sometimes a new employer will offer compensation for any loss of stock options and/or to indemnify against any claim for breach of contract or similar.
But it could also be that Mongo have simply agreed to release him - he was only there for 10 months, and might not have turned out to be a great fit. Their share price has been more or less level in that time whilst competitors have been rising so it's not as if he had notable immediate success in boosting their appeal to enterprise customers.
Anytime someone is at a company for less than a year and "departs," rightly or wrongly I assume there was some lack of meeting of the minds. I've known professional friends in that position but never asked about details.
The only thing that might give me pause is that there's no conciliatory language coming from Mongodb to indicate that it was a negotiated exit, not even a bland "by mutual agreement".
In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to minimise any mention of him which, to me, suggests that it might have been worded that way based on legal advice rather than for PR reasons.
Folks, we also need to address why meta hired the guy if failing up hypothesis is to gain ground. Meta is either part of the problem, stupid, or wants his connections all arguably bad.
So when you say "try", it's not like he was leetcoding on the side or anything. The way roles work at this level is a combination of network, exec recruiters, and eventually you talk comp. I hate to stereotype, but I'm going to assume in this case that there is someone senior at Meta that he is strongly connected to who referred him in. And by "referred him in" I don't mean submitted his name to some recruiter, I mean informing him the role even existed and making sure he was on the short list of consideration. Often this person is even the hiring manager, these are not roles you just let the recruiting pipeline fill with any person who fits the screening profile.
By "try", I mean there's a difference between applying and getting accepted, and getting an offer out of the blue. They've sent out some unsolicited offers before, and poached some executives that way, so that's why I ask.
You're right though that the process in practice can be more fuzzy (e.g., you weren't looking, but heard of an attractive opportunity and then applied that way).
working class people here thinking c level positions are billionaire corporations follow the same rules at small business (which startups are even lower)
exec on corporations is more about trust, family, and connections than anything else. previous work is mostly irrelevant.
It doesn't mean Meta is burning down, but it does mean the market is not convinced the Meta Enterprise Platform is going to be some exciting new business direction.
I was surprised Facebook Workplace lasted as long as it did. But, hey, it took Google a few tries to get GCP (anyone remember the Search Appliance?) to a solid place so I wouldn't count Meta out of being able to make an enterprise splash just yet.
I still think regular people, and markets, have not caught onto the implications of superintelligence. Its happening, and the tech oligarchs have seen it behind closed doors
Yeah, it's definitely this and not that Meta probably offered him a salary package that ensures generational wealth measured in centuries. Definitely the science fiction scenario, that is totally the realistic one and not a greedy wealthy CEO doing something that enables their greed.
Just now in 2026 we start to see glimpses of AI supremacy, e.g. navier stokes.
It’s similar to the deep blue moment. It took a while before consumer hardware could beat Kasparov, but the watershed moment was deep blue.
I reckon some private demos using far more compute than is available to us peasants convinced the tech oligarchs 3 years ago to pursue their seemingly coordinated AI push.
I mean, Mongo is to be a $600 dollar stock imho. You see, the amount logs AI creates or intermediary text storage it creates is just stunning. Nice entry for leaps. Plus, Mongo swiftly added their vector db too. It’s a obvious play.
I wonder if they’ll pair him with another acquisition like Porcupine. META has now realized how much money there is in selling a picks and shovels (as we see with Muse Spark).
"effective immediately" means either... he doesn't have a contract with a notice period, or he does and is willing to forfeit any benefit from it like share options, etc.
One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!), or Meta has offered him inducements > what he's walking away from.
Good way to burn a lot of bridges. He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
CEOs manage to fail upwards their entire career, I don't suspect this will be any different. Just some "nerds on a forum" who got annoyed with his personal decisions.
I think this is broadly true of leaders including lesser ones. It even seems true of roles like product manager.
The vast majority of projects seem to not meet their stated goals or KPIs or mission, be late, not follow remotely the planned path, etc. Whether blame falls on poor execution, poor planning, or overpromsing, those are precisely the things that chosen leaders are supposed to have been chosen to avoid—and what they would in theory fail downwards for. Unpredictable things do happen, but the regularity of these outcomes for projects (and products as a whole) means we're systematically choosing the wrong ones, there aren't enough capable ones (period), and/or that we shouldn't be org'd to need them in the first place. The last one is simply saying that if the environment is unpredictable enough that you can't plan well, then let's not spend time and money on planning. That in itself axes large chunks of the things product leaders do before work starts.
It makes iterating a more likely plan, but most teams and workstreams don't iterate too much. The iterating that sometimes is done is typically downstream of the plan, strategy, architecture that leadership leadershipped. They might do better without all the planning and overpromised timelines, which gut iterating. Iteration is only sort of a strategy anyhow (depends on what layer we're talking about when we say strategy). Iteration is what hedges a lack of vision.
New devs learn quickly that when the TPM over promises it's the devs job to take the fall when delivery is late, or kill themselves so the TPM can take credit.
> It even seems true of roles like product manager.
Yes, but there are valid reasons for this. Speaking as someone who is currently in Product, let me point out that a lot of larger efforts in large organizations are inherently risky. This is probably measurable, but generally nobody invests in doing so, rather than that we model it with approximations. When an executive decides on a strategy which has a large effort as a downstream outcome, there is some risk possible that it becomes impossible, or that it is possible but at 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x the cost/time which erodes its value. Success doesn't look like hitting an arbitrary timeline or budget, success looks like getting to an outcome that aligns with the objectives/goals of the strategy, in a timeline that doesn't torpedo the strategy, and in a way which results in an economic ROI.
I am generally considered pretty good in my current organization. I have been lauded often. I don't think any of the major initiatives I've worked on have been "on time", but in almost every case it was due to cross-organizational dependencies dragging things out, which is an inherent risk accounted for when doing anything large in a large organization. But every single one of those initiatives has resulted in a positive ROI in a manner timely enough to support the strategy.
From the perspective of the organization, that's a win. And a win is rewarded.
I imagine similar things can be seen at executive levels. Nobody is asking detailed execution questions about your strategy to determine if its a win or a loss, they're looking at the aggregate outcome. Did your strategy result in improved profitability or reduction of cost or increase in share price, or not? CEOs seem to fail upward even on those metrics, but other executive roles seem to be more accountable.
Some would call this a valuable skill.
> The vast majority of projects seem to not meet their stated goals or KPIs or mission, be late, not follow remotely the planned path, etc
Citation needed
100% this. The CEO at my last company squandered hundreds of millions of investor funds, and now he's the CEO at another company taking on hundreds of millions in debt.
Another example: current CEO of Cerebras, is an SEC felon from a prior company (for cooking the books), and now he's CEO of a public company.
Feldman "failing up" is being the CEO of a public company he _founded_.
"failed up" is currently defined as founding a company that goes public and being its CEO. I'd love to know what success is.
In my eyes, success is a profitable company.
Guy who thinks a kid's lemonade stand is a greater success than creating a new product category and technology in the hardware space.
lemonade stands are staffed by 11 year olds and there can be one on every corner.
these stands do better than cerebras, which is an 11 year old deeply unprofitable company building a technology that no other company has bothered to try to even get close to replicating.
Cerebras got lucky with the ban on NVIDIA chips due to "security reasons" in the middle east, securing a massive deal with the UAE's sovereign fund. Of course, the leaders made a nice donation to the Trump crypto fund and coincidentally the ban on NVIDIA was lifted. That presented a danger for Cerebras, but they also pivoted almost entirely to an inference as a service company, maximizing tokens/sec metrics on a variety of open weight models. Then they landed the contract with OpenAI which has bought them another lifeline, and helped paper over the trail of fraud that delayed the S1 and IPO for a few years. Fascinating story indeed!
The problem with the pivot is that with only 44GB of memory, you can't run models unless you nerf them or you scale the hardware out horizontally, which takes up a lot of space, power and even more cost.
This is why their API has dumb limits on it. I'd estimate their $/tok cost around $4-5000/mtok based on hardware alone, which is insane. Sure, it is fast, but if it is heavily quanted, expensive, and can't scale, you're going to be in a world of pain.
yea this isn't "and another example just off the top of my head" - this guy co-founded seamicro then cerebras both pretty badass companies, he was a vp of marketing not ceo when the sec sued not just him but the entire executive team. trudging up 20 year old nonsense to try and punch a guy who legit deserves his success is bullshit
Cerebras is an 11 year old unprofitable company with a stock that is down 30% since the IPO, in the hottest market ever.
They've pivoted many times over the years trying to make "wafer scale" work in a variety of use cases, and they still haven't gotten it right.
By the way, the CTO is dumping stock left and right and the stock is down nearly 5% today alone...
https://www.marketbeat.com/instant-alerts/insider-cerebras-s...
that's an automatic, prenegotiated sell off - calling that dumping is worse than calling the ceo a felon (at least one is technically true). are any of the big ai companies actually profitable? how has cerebras not gotten their chip right? they're the only company shipping wafer scale inference hardware, and they're shipping to the largest labs in the world. and it works - I use cerebras.ai the token rate is amazing
Sell offs don't have to happen, and $25m isn't some small amount of money.
> how has cerebras not gotten their chip right?
It doesn't scale, and won't ever be profitable. They pivoted to inference, which has the unfortunate (for them) side effect of also requiring a boat load of memory. This is why they just partnered with AMD to offload onto their chips.
> I use cerebras.ai the token rate is amazing
Ah, investor. Explains your responses.
> $25m isn't some small amount of money
it kind of is, relatively - sean might just be having a galaxy blackhole supercluster installed at home for all we know
> It doesn't scale .. They pivoted to inference
they have more options than non-wafer-scale solutions, the chips are going 3d and meanwhile they benefit from the same interconnect progress as the wholly memory-bound alternatives
> Ah, investor. Explains your responses.
physician heal thyself like your not out here tryna manifest your short
> they have more options than non-wafer-scale solutions, the chips are going 3d and meanwhile they benefit from the same interconnect progress as the wholly memory-bound alternatives
I hear that CS-420 will be amazing.
Not supporting GPs argument, but one can appreciate the t/s on cerebras.ai without being an investor.
...if you can get access.
down 30% since IPO, up 1000% since 2 years ago. Okay ...
They were public 2 years ago?
private markets, available on equityzen, hiive, forge, etc.
tae kim @firstadopter:
If I was a Cerebras shareholder, I would be LIVID right now. Seriously, what the hell. Insiders dumping stock: CFO, COO, accounting officer. AND NO INFO about losing GPT-6.1 Ultrafast.
https://x.com/firstadopter/status/2105860963132129358
Makes sense really.
Only needs to work once for him to get a passive payoff. Sitting in your lane usually doesn't buy you that.
Lol! Wat? Got more details?(On cerebras)
https://www.nhbr.com/ex-riverstone-execs-face-criminal-charg...
https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releas...
Thanks! Always amazing that people don't know this stuff. Oh and the current CFO of Cerebras was the CFO of Bird, another giant failure.
Can you name the CFO? I could not find any such person.
This is what I put into google: "cfo of cerebras bird"
It came back with Bob Komin.
I am sure this poignantly describes some CEOs, but my guess is this is probably empirically false on average.
(I'd ask some LLM to research it but the people who would be doubtful it's false significantly overlap with the people who distrust LLMs, so I'll just leave this as a random guess and nothing more.)
Feels like survivorship bias to me. CEO's fail up, except those that fail down, and the latter group aren't CEO's anymore, so they're less likely to show up in a sample.
It might be, but ... there are a lot of us who've seen this happen time and time again.
You have some startup, the founder is either young or doesn't want to do the CEO stuff. Things kind of eek along until the founder either steps aside or is removed by the board because a) it's time for a "grown-up" CEO; b) the CEO needs real sales experience; c) the founder overpromised and under-delivered; d) board/VC politics make it helpful to install a buddy as CEO; e) etc.
Then the CEO clock starts, typically they have 18 months to get lucky and hit their metrics. They do a lot of glad-handing. They hire "their team" of sales/marketing/etc people. They spend A LOT of money. And I mean A LOT. They talk about OKRs or SMRTs and KPIs. Out of nowhere a small army of project managers show up and try to tell you how to do your job and why you can't just talk to the <thing X> team directly but have to go through them for "efficiency" and "visibility."
In 3-6 months, senior engineering and R&D staff starts to leave. Whatever culture you had slips away. HR has "culture" meetings to "find the right company culture."
Sales/product can't sell and points the finger at R&D, maybe even for the right reasons. You OKR/KPI harder, but it doesn't matter because nothing addresses whatever the underlying problem is. Multiple senior people have pointed loudly to the problem and are ignored; they're often not managers so it's unclear if they were even heard.
At some point there are one or more rounds of layoffs; sometimes these are announced, sometimes it's just a gradual attrition.
Eventually the CEO clock runs out. They don't get lucky. Nothing they did helped, and some of it hurt. They collect their $1M severance, get to keep their stock, get 9-12 months of health insurance, and move on. In a year or two you hear about them joining a new company as CEO.
In the meantime, you've either moved on or have a new CEO with a new 18-month clock.
Perhaps CEOs are like NFL quarterbacks. They get all the credit when things go right and all the blame when they go wrong. In reality, they only have a limited number of levers to pull. Only extraordinary ones can overcome a bad team or a more hostile external environment.
If that were the case there would be more of them in jail.
Perhaps. But does anyone at all outside the c suite fail up in the same way? Fail spectacularly and get a comparable or better opportunity?
Even if it’s only 30% of CEOs and 15% of other CxOs there’s still an anomaly there to be explained.
Those that fall were insufficiently sociopathic.
LLm spoted lol
My post doesn't have any LLM tells, nor have I ever used one to write a social media comment.
That would actually be interesting if LLMs were to ever refer to LLM trust in the way I did. Kind of a scary thought.
I have been in a CEO replacement at my previous job. The owners were not happy with how things were going and replaced him. It was a decision only two or three people on the board participated in, even most of the board had no idea. In public, however, the only information that came out was that the CEO decided that his mission had been accomplished and it was time to look for new opportunities. These people never publicly tell the truth, what you hear on the news is what they want you to hear. The truth is almost certainly something completely different.
>He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
just need to spin the departure as being decisive and able to make tough decisions and he'll be back in the ceo seat in no time. especially if muse does well.
Yeah there’s a recruiting firm that literally hires ex-CEOs, puts them on the bench, then searches for their next “assignment”. They pay these people to golf until they place them.
https://www.heidrick.com/
There's multiple of these for executives. We tried using one at my last company to find a Sales exec (I think they would have been c-level). I was part of the interviewing process and what we found out was that we absolutely needed the ideas and practices these candidates had and simultaneously couldn't afford them at even half their asking price. It was a real conundrum and the company more or less failed 18 months later after management decided "doing nothing" was the right decision.
From experience I can say that people at level (particularly in sales) are very good at selling themselves - following through and delivering on those promises can be a very different thing.
I worked at one company hire a part-time CFO. Apparently part time execs are thing - late in their career and established and successfully to think about retiring, but don't want to get out of the game completely. Or to be e.g. a CFO for 3-4 startups at once. Not sure if that exists for sales, but I thought it was a neat idea.
Usually referred to as "fractional" roles - often used for senior advisors and executive board level posts, and for CxO roles that aren't central to the business (eg. CFO for non-finance companies, CTO/CIO for non-tech companies).
I wouldn't expect to see it for sales so much, as it would mess with the incentive structure and you kind of want your salesfolk to be "all in". Same goes for CEO or COO - they might have a small portfolio of non-exec board memberships (or similar) on the side, but it's hard to do a good job if your primary focus is split between multiple distinct businesses.
Yeah, Fractional C-levels are definitely a thing. I've served as a fractional CTO before. It can be really helpful for a small-to-mid size company trying to grow, but not nearly as effective as a full time exec doing the same tasks. Not having someone dedicating all of their time to understanding the company and the problems that need to be solved really limits how useful they can be.
Side note: I interviewed at Heidrick two weeks after 9/11. Manager said they had several employees quit on the spot. They offered terrible compensation so I passed.
What did 9/11 have to do with it?
Sorry. Their office was in the Sears (Willis) Tower.
It's common for VCs to do the same as "entrepreneur in residence"
>He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career
I'd eat my shorts if this was true. But even then he is likely set for life with his wealth, pre Meta offer.
Right. He was "set for life" pre MongoDB even. He was an early investor in Datadog.
> One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!)
From looking at the historical prices, it was down from $450 to $410 from a month ago, but still quite a bit from $235 six months ago, which is not anything close to what I'd consider "collapsed". Of course, he might have expected to continue going down, but that's going to be hard to measure in the short term given that announcements like this tend to affect the price directly in the short term (so far down to $338 today, close to double the loss of the entire previous month, although it seems far too soon to draw any conclusions).
Not that I think I'm saying anything that has any sort of bias, but it's probably reasonable in case anyone happens to read this and be suspicious: I did work at MongoDB for around five years (but haven't worked there for nearly as long), and from that stint I did have a sizable amount of shares, although as of last year I no longer hold any (for reasons completely unrelated to any personal opinions of the company; I had procrastinated way too much on making any sort of decision about how much to hold onto and for how long, so when my wife and I were buying a house, I decided it was time to just liquidate it and put it towards that instead).
The halo effect of being in the orbit of a product on the way up (as Muse appears to be) can offset almost any wrong. If Muse succeeds, he could get a CEO job anywhere he likes.
> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
This is a great example of saying how things should work, which is almost the exact opposite of how they actually work.
> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
I haven't had this experience I have found a lot of people who burnt the damn house down get hired in a company for a similar role in a few months especially CEOs and executives. Including large companies, I had someone I know in a c suite role who burnt a few other companies to join competitors now working in Tesla and a friend who burnt the bridges with supposedly half the SF who is still employed in a similar c-suite role in SF.
I really don't think people care unless you are a nobody sofware developer who tried to do the same perhaps, mostly because I can't prove it.
I think the most instructive example of this is Stephen Elop. He had ONE (1) successful business venture in the 90's and has done a horrible, laughably destructive job at everything he has ever touched since, and is still a CEO.
Oh man, he'll probably just have to eke out a living on $300m or something to last him the rest of his life. It will be tough.
I just don’t understand the drive of these people to keep seeking further power and wealth when they already are richer than most people could ever imagine. Just go enjoy your life.
I don’t think these people can sit around and enjoy nature. Nobody rewards you for enjoying nature. All their life they have learned to climb the social ladder and have become good at it, they keep getting rewarded and praised for it, so that’s what they do and keep doing.
I think they’re missing some internal loop. Only external rewards satisfy them and they maximise for that. Stopping is not an option, because then the rewards stop coming and they have no idea how to exist when that happens.
Reminds me the Bill Gates and the fisherman joke/story (which is based on an older/similar story): https://sampatpatnaik.blogspot.com/2008/10/bill-gates-fisher...
Also, instead of enjoying life they choose to report to Zuck, eww
high functioning sociopaths are still sociopaths. The domination and power are the point, not just something they are doing to make some cash.
Isn't it also a possibility that he gave notice and it wasn't announced to the world until his last day?
> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
Maybe he had enough.
He is 60 years old per wikipedia, this is likely his last rodeo. He has held board positions at Datadog, Athena Health, App Dynamics and other places in addition to his job at Mongo per LinkedIn. He was also at Mongo for 11 years.
It seems he is deeply connected, and probably approaching centimillionaire wealth.
Even if he is burning some bridges, its not going to affect his career at this point.
Edit: I looked at the current interim CEO's profile, not the outgoings, but its almost the same story- he is 55, been on other boards, has experience at director+ level since 1995 listed... this isn't going to hurt his career.
Or he told the board he’s resigning and they told him it’s immediate. It’s unlikely he resigned with zero notice so he could go the Meta the very next day.
>he does and is willing to forfeit any benefit from it like share options
His stocks/options vested/exercised last Friday. He's not forfeiting anything.
Where do you see that information?
MongoDB is a publicly traded company. You have to have inform people when C-level (other key personnel???) get shares, sell them.
> One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back
Not sure how you made that assessment!
52 Week Range: 215.68 - 473.10
Yesterday, it closed at 410.44. Clearly, very far away from collapse. In fact, it made a solid comeback (almost doubled from lows).
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MDB/
> One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!), or Meta has offered him inducements > what he's walking away from.
Or there's something else scandalous happening and he wants to halt a bad look ASAP? I don't get why he or Meta couldn't have waited a couple weeks otherwise.
> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
You must be new to the corporate world or incredibly naive.
No way. CEOs with significant experience are not easy to find so he’s going to do just fine.
He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.
I wish I had your belief in sensible logic like that.
But I suspect you're wrong, even though you shouldn't be.
Do you think he needs to make any more money in his life, or can he retire tomorrow and live comfortably long past his death?
The third option could surely be he was fired ? Although I would imagine MongoDB would have organised someone already to take over.
The previous CEO immediately returned as interim CEO, so they sort of did have someone ready.
Interim is always a temp one though, and the fact it was the previous feels to me at least like them saying "Hey we need a favour" but I have no insight.
Maybe this is a silly assumption, but, he reached the title, he’s got the ladder-climbing experience to understand his choice.
the share price dropping was due to him leaving, not the cause of him leaving (but this is very bearish for mongo)
People get fired effective immediately.
> One reason might be the share price has collapsed and he has no confidence in it coming back (pretty scandalous if he's the CEO!)
Is it?
Scandals require consequence. He's getting a new job at Meta. It'll take lawsuits to suss all of this out and those take years.
Worth noting: CJ wasn't just the CEO, he was also board member and president.
This is what happens when you don't have effective corporate governance.
Which probably means it's time for the adventurous to try and short MongoDB
Not sure why he'd want to take the pay cut with being a CEO
He don't need to be CEO with the money he already have.
or "resigned to spend more time with the family" aka was fired
If he makes Meta a shit ton of money then nobody will care and he’ll easily find more jobs.
He is likely being promised a chance at succession to CEO.
no chance, will definitely be Mosseri, Mark is not handing the reigns to an enterprise guy
Agreed an enterprise guy is not the next CEO but I doubt Zuck has any near term succession plan.
Mosseri is basically the same age as Zuck, and Zuck still seems extremely hands on.
Check back in 10 years to see how things are going, maybe its Wang or a currently unknown 20 something.
he got fired
[dead]
Workers are so much more militant and punitive than executives. It's not other executives that will try and hurt his career because he made a decision and went with it. It will be the worker bees that will attempt to hurt him 5 years down the road -- without even knowing the full story.
There are very practical reasons to not hire someone who abruptly dips after less than a year on the job that have nothing to do with being punitive.
Yes, those poor executives.
The execs are fine. The barrel crabs certainly are getting active though. It's pure, unadulterated envy. Nothing more.
its a small club, and you ain't in it friend. No matter how many boots you lick.
I don’t need to be in “the club”. Some people badly want that. Let them have it. Why would I have a problem with an executive changing jobs? Because he gets paid more money than me?
so you do realise that people can have an opinion on executives without being envious of them
appreciate that you did not even bother to dispute that you kiss boots
I appreciate that you noticed that I didn’t bother. Why would I? Are you someone I should care about?
This is data point #2 in his executive career, it's now a trend.
https://www.crn.com/news/channel-news/2024/servicenow-presid...
Even CEOs gotta job hop to beat that 23% inflation!! (Y/y airline prices).
You missed the point. The reason behind the job hops is worth looking at closely. In retrospect, his time at MDB appears to launder a reputation that was shattered. Ending up at meta, therefore, seems to suit him well.
data point #3 if you include his stint at Symantec 10+ years ago.
Wow, TIL servicenow was his second run-in with the US government. I believe this is what you were referring to:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/united-states-intervenes-...
TIL MongoDB is a publicly traded company.
I can't imagine the future is bright for MongoDB as AI makes it much less painful to move off of legacy and/or overpriced software.
> AI makes it much less painful to move off of legacy and/or overpriced software.
Agreed. While DynamoDB != MongoDB, they are similar. I built a product on DynamoDB (Single-table-design) and while it was cool to find a way to make relational data work in DynamoDB, it was always a chore. New feature development was a huge PITA as was changing schema in any way. Sure, I might have been "holding it wrong" but after a weekend with Claude I migrated everything to Postgres and have been incredibly happy with that change something like 4-6 months later.
DynamoDB is really a fantastic product for the 99% percentile of workloads that need a particular kind of super low latency read operation at large scale.
The simplicity of using it and the lack of operations is really why most people tend to reach for it over a relational option, although over the years the burden of managing an RDMS has consistently gone down.
If your access patterns are fixed and not going to change, if your schema is pretty much solidified, then yes, I don't doubt that at all. But few things I've worked on have had such stable access patterns or schemas that they would benefit.
I enjoyed solving the challenges around using DynamoDB way more than I enjoyed using it on an ongoing basis.
DocumentDB more or less is MongoDB though
DynamoDB is very expensive.
I worked there from around a year before the IPO until around three and a half years after. The IPO price was around $24 if I remember correctly, but it's been floating in the $300-450 range for a while now. I have no clue what the future holds for it, but the IPO clearly did what it was intended to do.
Oracle is still making a very, very healthy amount of money on legacy db products. Momentum is a very powerful thing.
We're early on in the LLM era, so I have hope that it can crush Oracle's business model. That said, your database is probably the hardest part of your application to migrate off of...
> your database is probably the hardest part of your application to migrate off of
Oracle has understood this for a long time. RDMBS have seen many generations of application tech stacks rise and fall. Other than C and unix they have outlasted almost everything.
I was thinking maybe investigations and prison time should crush Oracle's business model.
They bought Cerner early in the decade and have whittled it down to absolutely nothing. This is a problem when the software that Cerner sold was EMRs and I have people who used to work there telling me that the perioperative and anesthesia suites now have one person working on them, and no one's fixing issues.
> We're early on in the LLM era, so I have hope that it can crush Oracle's business model.
They're a hypercloud provider now. It may be awhile.
Oracle seems to be doing their best to expedite their own crushing. I wish them success.
> Oracle seems to be doing their best to expedite their own crushing.
Ehhhhhh maybe https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ORCL
As much as I'd like to believe this, they have their ways of making money.
don't look at the oracle stock price over the last year though
This is mostly an artifact of their bonkers hyperscaler build up. The growth in their RDBMS has got to be 0 or negative, but existing customers are locked in tight imo.
$322 to $130. ouch
IMO because usually the ones that use Oracle are usually slow at changing, usually risk-averse, CYA culture and big bureaucracy.
Don’t look at oracle’s debts
Mongo’s biggest sell was it increases developer productivity so backlogs were burned down faster and managers all benefited.
AI greatly removes that differentiator. AI doesn’t care if it needs schemas or if there’s an idiomatic driver for Python or Node. Even schema changes aren’t an issue and most databases support complex data anyways.
At this point I'd rather use a Claude-written database system than use MongoDB at any price.
MongoDB is webscale.
MongoDB is the only open-source database that supports multi-master high-availability out of the box.
MongoDB can't deliver high availability.
MongoDB has been proprietary since 2018.
Citus on Postgres used to have similar feature; Dead after Microsoft acquisition
Ehmm... MongoDB is not open source.
Isn't this the default in Cassandra?
Uh, CockroachDB?
They changed licensing.
i think infra software will be just fine. ai isnt going to implement a saas-database. and why would anybody migrate of mongodb, just to put their business data elsewhere?
it's end user software that's absolutely getting crushed.
[dead]
the more integrations are made to enable 'a.i' the more use cases for document databases.
A few days ago I learned Dana White (UFC's CEO) is on meta's board of directors, nothing will surprise me now.
Dana White turned a failing company into billions of dollars. Really, I think you are underestimating his ability.
There’s some weirdness with the UFC’s struggle at the time.
The Fertitta brothers are who actually bought it. Before owning the UFC, Lorenzo Fertitta was on (maybe the head?) of the Nevada State Athletic Commission- the very body who were refusing to sanction UFC events at the time, and the most important governing body in the combat sports world.
Obviously the UFC was hurting bad at that time since they couldn’t be sanctioned, were getting booted from arenas they booked, and were getting dropped by Pay Per View carriers. This decimated their value and the Fertittas scooped up the company for a song.
All of a sudden, now that they owned it, the sanctioning bodies agreed on a set of unified MMA rules, the UFC was re-sanctioned, and they started selling PPVs again.
It was actually quite a success from the very beginning. Their troubles were likely imposed on them by their prospective buyers in order to get the sale done, and all they and Dana White did really were take their foot off the company’s neck.
Agree with most of this but they do deserve credit for the lift off that the UFC saw after the Ultimate Fighter. That was a legit cultural phenomenon for certain demos at the time. Without that, things could have have gone very, very differently.
I'm not sure that this was the deciding factor
I’m pretty sure it’s more about his close connection to Trump
And Zuck’s sudden interest in MMA/boxing/Jiu Jitsu as part of his “alpha male” rebranding.
Huh, taking care of your body, being interested in a sport, and not being a robot is now labelled as an alpha male?
>> And Zuck’s sudden interest in MMA/boxing/Jiu Jitsu as part of his “alpha male” rebranding.
> Huh, taking care of your body, being interested in a sport, and not being a robot is now labelled as an alpha male?
You're doing a lot of projecting here.
The sentence equating fitness with being 'alpha male' was from binlog.
You may wish to read the thread more carefully, because you are mistaken. If after carefully rereading the thread you still believe you are correct, please explain exactly what part of this sentence:
> “And Zuck’s sudden interest in MMA/boxing/Jiu Jitsu as part of his “alpha male” rebranding”
equates general interest in fitness with being an “alpha male”. Because to me it is pretty clearly referring to the interest in combat sports, not fitness.
Combat sports are a type of fitness. You know this. Pretending otherwise is a waste of everyone’s time.
Criticizing a subset is not the same as criticizing the whole set. You know this. Pretending otherwise is a waste of everyone’s time.
All this requires is basic reading comprehension and a willingness to not read into statements things that weren’t stated.
[dead]
That was part of it, back in the early 2000s when people considered MMA "human cockfighting" (but bizarrely, boxing was OK) Trump let the events go on at his venues, however Dana is a pretty formidable businessman regardless of the connection to Trump.
No one has actually said that Dana White is a bad business man. It's just very difficult to believe that's the reason he was appointed to the board of a social media company on the same day that Donald Trump was inaugurated. If he was so consequential why wasn't he named to the board on Jan 7th 2021? I think we know why.
There's been a rightward shift in tech and culture (eg, children identify much less as transger and bisexual than a few years ago), it's likely Facebook is aligning with that.
Zuck spends billions on funding for left aligned causes while spending basically nothing on the reverse. He's a chameleon that merely takes the appearance of a centrist when need be. The money doesn't lie though.
Zuck is front row at a lot of fights and sometimes holds towels etc for fighters during walkons. Meta Threads is the official social media sponsor.
Trump and Dana are close, and when Trump got re-elected, Dana was suddenly added to the Meta board as I think he was seen as a way to influence the Trump administration.
Same as how Clegg was brought in when the EU were on meta's case.
It is a scummy company run by scumbags, of course he would be.
Isn't MongoDB relatively stable? I can't think of why it would need any particular CEO, and an executive moving to a company that burns money for fun doesn't say much about their previous job. So why the huge stock drop?
Probably just because it reminded everybody that MongoDB exists as a corporate entity and everybody is re-evaluating investment in "Open Core" products where the paid value-add is consultancy because learning to us the product is so difficult, since LLMs for all their faults are good at "how do I use this hard-to-learn tool?"
"Hey the MongoDB guy left, is MongoDB okay?.... wait, no, of course it isn't. It's in that space that is completely screwed."
P/E ratio 472.47
I had to google to see if this is correct. Completely absurd. At that rate MongoDB better pull out a cure for cancer out of their DB
MongoDB's net profit margin has been improving significantly over the last 5 years, increasing from -35% to +2%. This makes the P/E ratio not a very reliable lens to value the stock, vs using P/E ratios to compare mature companies that have relatively stable net profit margins.
To crudely estimate a fundamental valuation for MongoDB as a discounted sequence of future earnings, we'd need some understanding of the main factors that are driving this change in the net profit margin (over the next 5 years do we expect those factors to persist? to decay? to accelerate?), some modelling assumptions & forecasts for how they'll evolve over the next decade or two, and a discount factor.
Out of curiosity, I bashed together a naive NPV valuation, in complete ignorance of MongoDB's underlying business.
Completely unjustified modelling assumptions: suppose MongoDB can grow revenue at +20% / year for 5 years, then +5% / year for the next 5, then hitting a steady state +2.5% / year revenue growth; MongoDB grows net profit margin by +5% every year until hitting a 25% net profit margin, where it tops out; discount factor of 9.5% (= 5% risk free rate + 4.5% equity risk premium); no change in number of shares outstanding (perhaps optimistic, given they issued a bunch of stock within the last 5 years). Projecting this out 20 years & then using a 20x P/E valuation multiple at year 20 for the terminal value gives us an NPV estimate of the value at about $290 / share.
So if you believe MongoDB's business will do about that well, with your fundamental valuation investor hat on you could consider buying some stock if it were offered at, say, half the current market price or less -- assuming there isn't anything more attractive to invest in.
If you believe MongoDB's revenue growth & improvement in net profit margin will be much stronger over the next decade, maybe you'd be comfortable buying closer to the current market price.
(I don't hold any MongoDB stock & find it hard to stomach investing in growth companies vs companies that are more mature & easier to understand, but I appreciate that to value growth stocks you're not going to have much luck using P/B or P/E ratios)
Might have interpreted it as captain heading for lifeboat.
Stock prices have nothing to do with business performance anymore
Also claude can probably knock out a mongodb clone in a couple of days.
Git can clone mongodb in far less than that. I think you might be misunderstanding where the revenue comes from.
It doesn't even need a couple days. I got Opus 5.5 to do it in like three or four hours, just out of curiosity.
crazy we're cheering on theft.
information wants to be free?
For folks who don’t know, CJ was the president of product and technology at Cloudflare for 6 months and CJ left them and joined MongoDB.
Cloudflare didn’t join MongoDB, did they?
My bad on the phrasing. CJ joined MongoDB. The modern gender pronouns are confusing.
People have been using "they" as a gender neutral singular pronoun for 600 years. I doubt you're old enough to find this confusing.
[flagged]
If I hear "they" are foreign" I'm capable of any or all of the following as situationally relevant:
* deciding if singular or plural is relevant based on the antecedent.
* deciding if singular or plural is relevant based on other context.
* deciding if the singular or plural actually meaninfully changes the meaning of the statement within it's context and not worrying about if it doesn't.
* in the vanishingly rare cases where it's meaningful, contextually unclear, and I am still unsure, I can ask.
I may be an imbecile, but fortunately it takes only a minuscule amount of mental power to handle all this. English has a lot of redundancies and deducing from context is built into the language.
So when hear a simple snippet "they are foreign" I assume either it will become clear from further context, or it doesn't matter how many people "they" refers to since someone is having a tantrum about pronoun usage.
Perhaps what's really bothering you isn't that I pointed out the historicity of a common, centuries-old pattern in the English language, but rather that someone missed naptime and is grumpy.
Not really, "they" has been used to refer to a singular gender neutral subject for way longer than you've been alive. Whether it refers to plural or singular subject, and often who it refers to, is all pulled from the context of the story.
No, no it hasn't. The first time I heard it was about 20 years ago. Its annoying and intentionally confusing. People used the singular pronouns before that and just gendered them when that provided clarity. The gender neutral singular pronoun in English is 'it'. I get that you think the world was created when you were born but that's just not the case and all you are doing is making older people not trust your judgement.
PS Communication normally is about clarity. This type of intentionally confusing change in grammar is straight out of Bolshevik propaganda. Just like the phrase "politically correct" which literally means its wrong but I will have the state use violence against you if you point out that its wrong.
Here's my source[0], certainly I doubt all of society in the 1300s designed a word to intentionally confuse you 700 years later. But feel free to provide your sources.
Just because you heard it 20 years ago, does not mean that it was not used before.
In addition, "it" is not used for people. Yes, it is a gender neutral pronoun, but would be considered very offensive if you refer to a person by "it". The only example where you can use it usually is a baby whose name and/or sex is not known, often prior to them being born.
The phrase "politically correct" mostly only used by "anti-woke" snowflakes who believe they are better than those who tell others to leave non-binary folks alone, yet at the same time will rage all day just because some said that they're a "they" or some silly little thing. As if they've got nothing else to do in life but get angry at someone for having a preferring on how they want to be referred to.
Also implying that the natural evolution of the English language is some form of propaganda is wild to me. The language is essentially an evolution of German, with heavy influence from Roman/French and Old Norse. Saying that it is propaganda is like saying there's been some psyops by millions of people happening over centuries to mislead millions of other people.
The only correct thing you've said is "communication normally is about clarity". Honestly, to me, it feels like that hasn't really worked on you. You're certainly not clear about the history of the English language.
[0] https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-the...
> if you hear "they are foreign" you don't think its multiple people?
This is almost never ambiguous within context. I blame the outrage on illiteracy. If you don't read a lot, even a simple turn of phrase or grammatical ambiguity could be anxiety inducing.
Ah, I miss the days of NoSQL vs. SQL debates.
I recently took my app off of Mongo Atlas because I was tired of dealing with charges that caught me off guard. I was tired of feeling like I was getting nickel and dimed over every little thing.
I ended up migrating everything to DigitalOcean's managed database for 1/3 the price. Less headache, better performance, and less panic and anger.
I'll never, ever use Mongo Atlas again.
Anecdotally, I've seen a surprising number MongoDB employees applying to our job listings for the last 6-9 months (enough to feel like a trend).
MongoDB is aggressively hiring in Dublin, though.
So turns out nosql is no place for "structured" role like ceo.
CEO leaves, stock market value drops ~$6.5B
One interpretation is that senior leadership (e.g. CEO) matters a lot. But it flies against the idea that CEOs are overpaid. From a quick search, it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions. Perhaps he would not have left if he had a higher pay, more in line with the value the market ascribes to him.
However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?
> However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?
Judging by your recent comments, you seem to have an axe to grind with people who are "upset about CEO pay" and I don't think it's possible to convince you to look any things from any other angle.
A CEO abruptly resigning is read by the market as a signal. Unless you think this person is ~$6.5B more valuable than any potential replacement, the full quantity of the loss cannot be ascribed to the value he provides as an employee.
>it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions.
this same things can happen with any employee at any company and does not bolster your argument.
a $10/hr worker flipping burgers can take actions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. burger king foot lettuce guy probably cost the company millions.
i could cause millions of dollars in damage this afternoon (i am not paid millions).
I don't think the CEO sabotaged anything or created legal liability causing the $6b drop. I think you're stretching here.
the point is that the amount of money you make is not really tied to the amount of many you can cause the company to lose (on purpose, by accident, by departure, etc.).
or, in other words, looking at the 6B loss and working backwards to say that the CEO was underpaid at 52MM is nonsensical
I think it's a pretty clear counterfactual. Someone works there company is worth X. If he doesn't work there, what would the company be worth? Note that the role itself doesn't go away, it will get replaced, but the difference in market value is his worth to the company compared to a median CEO.
It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business. It's not a moral worth, it's just a market value as perceived by the market. In other words, a rational investor would gladly pay the CEO $1b for him not to leave and save $6b in market cap. So by definition he must be worth at least that much.
>It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business.
there's many explanations as to why the stock dropped the amount it did. one of the least likely was that desai's leadership is worth billions of dollars. it has nothing to do with "icky".
a rational investor would not want desai to receive a ~20x raise to stay, either. i have no idea why you think they would.
This was sudden very large drop, coincided exactly with announcement CEO would be leaving.
MongoDB reaffirmed both Q3 and full-year FY2027 guidance this morning.
There was no revenue warning, earnings revision, or deterioration disclosed alongside Desai’s departure.
There was no major analyst downgrade today driving the move. In fact, Citizens maintained its Buy rating and $519 target.
There's literally no other reason I can reasonably think of for the large stock drop apart from his departure. So I think you're stretching here. You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.
Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much
His departure causing a drop does not mean he was worth that drop. Investors think his departure signals internal issues and are trading based off that.
>You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.
you keep saying this, but you have literally no idea who i am or what my morals are. perhaps you should not speak so confidently about things you know nothing about.
i dont find anything "icky", i just disagree with you.
>Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much
you can't make up a random number then use that made up number as "validation" for your point.
One has to imagine that the op is a ceo himself. They are just not engaging with any of these arguments in good faith - strawmanning and then attacking personally
Leaving a company != Taking actions.
If a Burger Flipper leaves the company, it costs them exactly the amount of Burgers they fell short of making (to meet the demand) till they find the replacement burger flipper and they are exactly paid that much.
Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much
>Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much
yes, that's my point.
and it absolutely extends to unexpectedly leaving. there have been plenty of times in my career that simply leaving without notice would have cost my company many times my salary.
mongodb ceo is not worth 6 billion dollars.
Somehow missed this until now. Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_foot_lettuce
Dude if you bought this morning on the news you would have made well over 10% back today. This smells more of a massive algorithmic sell off
if "CEO Resignes" SELL SELL SELL
Another reading is this: CEOs don't quit without notice [1], it's bad form and bad for both the company and for the reputation of the person leaving. Regardless of the value he as an individual was providing it speaks to substantial disfunction in the overall leadership of the company and a major lack of confidence from the person who presumably had the best idea of how the company was doing on the whole. The market suddenly learning those things resulted in a substantial market correction. It doesn't really matter whether he was a particularly good or bad CEO; the situation would indicate something is majorly wrong in either case.
1: Obviously exceptions will exist for unexpected major life events, etc.
You made the assumption that it was fairly valued before and the loss was a "true" loss.
But possible it could have been over-valued before, unbeknownst to low-information external investors. After all, right now it as a PE of 450+. (Google PE is 17, Meta PE is 27, Tesla PE is 330)
The stock dropping on CEO departure had nothing to do with his personal performance, and everything to do with the information that he revealed on the way out. Why would the CEO leave a rising and successful company on the verge of innovation?
And thus tying it back to pay - people should be paid based on their output and their personal performance, not based on simply serving as a signal which any warm body can do. That said, I don't think truly amazing CEOs are overpaid, e.g. steve jobs of old.
How much of the drop do you think is due to the bearish nature of ceo departure? One would have to assume that if the company was going to go gangbusters the ceo would stay.
In short: is it this particular CEO who is that valuable? Should I pay 100m to some Joe off the street since I know they will stay put?
Zuck probably outbid him. He walked away from $30m unvested. If they paid him more, he likely would have stayed and the stock wouldn't drop $6b
CEOs leave all the time. Average tenure has dropped over the years suggesting a fierce competition for senior talent
30m unvested at what price? If you think it’s going to 2x, then it’s worth 60m. Maybe zuck paid an unrealistic multiple - 20x, but out side of that still a bearish signal
Just because the market reacts to a piece of information to the tune of 6B, doesn't mean the guy is providing 6b of value. It's just a piece of information and the market reacts to what it may or may not mean. Any other goober with an MBA in that role who quits with no notice may induce the same market reaction, even if they were a shit ceo.
If you think his departure won't impact the company, it looks like you're smarter than other investors and you get to buy MongoDB at a 25% discount. Also there's a job opening at the top spot, although you may be better suited as an investor with this kind of insight.
departure could also mean, private information about MongoDB problems that is not public, so I would not invest in MongoDB
Yeah this op keeps skipping this point… like this is everyone’s argument boiled down and he just keeps saying well market says he’s valuable. No, market says his departure is indicative of real price being XXm lower than previous, it could have little to do with his value directly
Trading algorithms at big shops read headline "CEO of company leaves for greener AI pastures"
Make adjustments based on ML
Actual analysis of this person's value to company not weighted as highly
Er, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at, but the stop market drop was not because of his value-add to the company, it was because of the signal it sends by the CEO quitting.
So… I guess you could make an argument that that merits higher pay, but it'd be saying it's due to his blackmail power.
> However I imagine those that are upset about CEO pay will find this unconvincing. Is there any other way to interpret this?
I would argue that at most he's a signal about company value that people reacted to. Maybe the company lost 6 billion dollars in underlying value, but it wasn't from the CEO change itself.
>Is there any other way to interpret this?
One would be "the market processing the new information that MongoDB's legal department doesn't know how to draft contracts".
ole Zuck just buying what he wants - for any price, cause that is what the richest in the world can do? Also using the market cap / paper valuation isn't aligned with 'actual value' imo.
How much closer can you get to “actual value” than a long standing publicly trades business with deep liquidity?
> Is there any other way to interpret this?
Sure: Destructive actions have a lower bar than constructive ones.
My company doesn't pay me millions, but I were motivated to do so, I could probably cost my company millions. Similar principle here: regardless of whether the CEO is any good, simply by virtue of their position they can tank the stock by making wild moves that undermine confidence.
Imagine a generic human blob CEO with minimal VORP[0], you could swap him out with anyone else in the organisation and get the same results. But if he gets on twitter and announces, "This company is trash and I'm leaving this trash fire," he's going to cost them millions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player
People still use MongoDB?
MongoDB is not a bad database, it is not my first immediate choice for everything, but it is very easy to get into, super easy to prototype with. My biggest pet peeve is how it handled indexes, shoves it all into memory. That and how people use it sometimes bewilders me.
Two fun facts: ObjectID's are like Discord snowflakes: you can get a timestamp of when they were generated, you can also generate them client side, so you can filter items in a collection by when they were created.
The other one, that I always enjoyed is, you can take an existing ObjectId, and reinsert it into another document, you dont have to nest all your data, you can go kinda sorta relational about it.
Used it at a previous job, the first project could have just used a SQL db but because the person who made the intial one tried to do NoSQL using something in the cloud, they migrated it to MongoDB to keep it simple and consistent. The second project, well, we really discovered all the limits if you aren't Google with unlimited server memory available, like indexing as I mentioned. MongoDB pipelines are probably my favorite feature on the other hand.
> you can go kinda sorta relational about it.
and reinvent half of a SQL engine inside your backend logic, badly.
(source: for the 3rd time, I'm working on a system that uses Mongo extensively, the goal is to move to Postgres as soon as that's viable)
Yeah, I wouldnt recommend doing MongoDB for EVERYTHING, but when you're using it for very specific things, you dont have to throw away everything you're already familiar with is all I was saying.
Postgres does not scale. I have extensive experience in some of the largest databases ever built, postgres doesn't even come close.
Curious to know what does actually scale according to your opinion (if not postgres) and what is the scale that we are talking about when mentioning some of the largest databases ever built (I hope you can talk more about it!)
There seems to be many many options at attempting/trying to scale postgresql, what are your opinions of them?
Also It is my sort of opinion that you really have a good problem if postgresql isn't working you because of the problem of scale and that, evaluation of other problems become much easier but in general, its easier to start with postgresql.
(Personally, I use sqlite + golang static binaries on a 500mb/1gb ram server, so I can't comment too much on the scale part as I am focused much more on simplicity yet I admire how aside from sqlite (which is also more scalable than people think!) postgresql is almost always good enough in my opinion though I can be wrong and I usually am)
People do hate on it but MySQL is what I would reach for when needing tons of scale. Its correctness issues about type conversions are super well documented at this point and Innodb is really good at ingesting tons of data. There's also a lot of talent you can hire if you need exotic setup.
Please elaborate more instead of just "trust me" it would be nice to understand where this comes from. I'm sure back some years people would have said the same about MySQL, yet YouTube used the heck out of MySQL, they made an entire Go based runtime on top of it to scale MySQL.
You can scale nearly anything if you know what you're doing.
there are mountains of evidence that postgres does indeed scale if thoughfully designed.
It's hilarious that this discussion thread is literally repeating the meme joke in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
It's not that it does not scale but it does not scale out of the box.
It would be nice if you could substantiate this a bit.
Like, what kind of measurement is "largest"? Most bytes on disk?
Migrate to yugabyte? It's a multi-raft fork of postgres.
MongoDB's biggest weakness was its default settings, which made it insecure and very vulnerable to data consistency failures. An absolute nightmare for PR. It's not perfect, but it's comparable to other NoSQL databases now.
Their biggest weakness was that their marketing promised way, way more than they could deliver.
Aphyr's original examination [0] took them to task so much so that I always think of it as the start of the "end", at least of the "web scale" obsession.
[0] https://aphyr.com/posts/284-jepsen-mongodb
IIRC (from my time there) Stripe still uses MongoDB for it's main datastore.
https://stripe.dev/blog/how-stripes-document-databases-suppo...
MongoDB has been a good database for years.
MongoDB is a great db for agentic workloads to be honest. Thats probably why they are still seeing growth. They also have some very good embedding models. They should really make those available over their own API though.
They probably should look into JEV style models as well might make sense for automatic classification of data.
MongoDB is a natural choice if you are working with denormalized deeply hierarchical data structure like JSON. It is also natural to JavaScript devs since the shell itself is JavaScript. This makes it super effective on modern web framework although I recently switched to Drizzle
poor souls stuck maintaining brownfield webshit developed during the height of mongo's marketing campaign 10 years ago.
I think its Zuck's new hiring strat,
He hired cred CEO to be whatsapp CEO.
Scale CEO to be AI leader
Now Mongo ceo to lead the AI enterprise sales.
Demis Hassabis decided not to sell DeepMind to Facebook after testing Mark Zuckerberg at dinner and realizing Zuckerberg sounded "Equally Excited" about every tech trend brought up.
Interesting choice, his prior experience doesn't seem AI related yet he's going to lead an AI strategy at Meta?
Meta’s chief AI officer is a 29-30 year old who was acquihired as part of his data labelling company. He’s not a model developer.
Meta hires in strange ways. I’m convinced it’s more about your sales pitch going in.
> I’m convinced it’s more about your sales pitch going in.
Given this guy's job will be selling Muse to corporations, sounds like the best way to hire for that position.
Data is at the heart of AI training. Good data makes good models. Their chief AI officer understood this, which is why Facebook went crazy about collecting data. And it worked. Muse Spark is really good for its price.
And I'm pretty sure this "29-30 year old who was merely acquihired" probably knows more than these veteran/boomer execs about how to execute a consumer AI product strategy.
"Chief AI officer" does not mean he leads AI research efforts, its just a title. He just takes care of hiring and product direction, both of which I'd say hes done well in. They obviously have actual researchers working on models.
I'd go as far as to say Alexandr Wang can do this better than most other leaders. Young people should be in charge of products, they generally have a better sense of what resonates with consumers, and Meta is a consumer company at the end of the day.
I've run out of fingers for the amount of people in my network that are now leading/head of AI xyz at their employers yet have little to no understanding of AI beyond asking ChatGPT simple questions.
MongoDB is the textbook success of "Zero friction and slick marketing beats good engineering discipline" that is the AI froth right now.
From a technical standpoint? Very different. From a marketing standpoint when selling to software-development clients? Same space.
Yeah, glancing at headlines this is basically "MongoDB is a company with a lot of experience selling to enterprise clients (and by extension the CEO knows how to run such a company), Meta wants to sell enterprise clients their AI offerings".
Which is like, not as weird as most AI company headlines, to be honest?
Not just that, they're also kinda similar value proposition, in that it's "holy crap look how fast you can develop code if you just ignore all of the longer-term risks you're creating".
Both AI and Mongo can be used for good and quality code but that's not how they get sales.
At least it’ll be Webscale.
"Effective immediately" is harsh even though perfectly legal. Does this mean nobody knew and it was a "Surprise!!!"? Extremely callous if that's the case, there is got to be more to the story.
Is a CEO really worth 20% of market cap? Nuts.
It looks like that phrase was removed from the article, but that is standard for C-level jobs. When you resign, you're shown the door immediately. The same thing happened with Marissa Mayer when she left Google during a phone call. Call was ended and her accesses terminated. Can't risk any additional trade secrets leaving.
> It looks like that phrase was removed from the article, but that is standard for C-level jobs.
Isn't the standard they get a made up advisor role for some months? Though usually that involves the ex-C-level to understand the implicit expectation of not starting immediately at the next place.
MongoDB does seem to be in a rough spot. Their pitch is an easier to get started with database, which longer term gives you problems and higher costs. And since we all have AI agents, why would you select that for any use case?
Not to mention it is a painful database to work with... Doc DBs were simple 15+ years ago, but turns out most data is relational and it's just simpler to use postgres.
MongoDB and its hype burned many, many people back in the day. It's hard to overstate how much it used to suck ass. At one point MongoDB client libraries would report that writes succeeded even if your box had no internet connection, that's how bad it was.
The Mongo fans claim "no really, it's good now", but I was one of the people burned so badly that I'll never touch it with a ten-foot pole again for as long as I live. I assume this toxic reputation is a big part of the problem.
As a non-joke question - I am surprised a CEO can do this. Wouldn't there be contract terms about notice period, orderly transition etc?
Likely anything that goes beyond missing out on compensation (ex: unvested RSUs) or even clawing back some comp would violate labor laws. CEOs are still employees, and legislation regulating employer-employee relations trumps all contracts.
A lot of these labor laws get less protective for higher-ranked people in a company, whether it be due to thresholds based on compensation or explicit carve-outs for executives/board members. It varies a lot from place to place.
In the US, there is only one labor law that is different for execs and high paid employees and that is overtime rules. Fiduciary duty does govern how a director or officer behaves while in the role, loyalty, no self-dealing, no stealing corporate opportunities etc. It doesn't oblige them to stay or dictate how they must leave.
In US and English law, "specific performance", so a court ordering you to do what you promised, isn't available for personal service contracts. In the US that's reinforced by the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. So even if a CEO signed a contract promising 6 months notice and a smooth handover, the company can't make them do it, they can only enforce any financial penalties that are contracted.
There are many many instances where the CEO is not an employee, but they operate via their own legal entity. To be honest I don't know how this works at larger companies.
I'd never heard of this. It turns out it is very rare for publicly traded companies [1]. In these cases, I would guess it comes down to contract terms. But again, it's not as though the law would compel an individual to continue working at a company. It would just come down to what the contracts say, and, potentially, how the courts interpret those contracts in the event of a lawsuit.
[1] Examples I found: Worksport Ltd., Exicure, Inc., Rainmaker Worldwide Inc., and Acorn Energy, Inc.
I have never heard of this. Do you mind sharing some examples?
A contractor CEO? I know it is extremely common for directors to be contractors for tax reasons.
it simply works, that's how you optimise tax on million+ sums, do you think ceo-s pay taxes on par with regular workers?
Yes, CEOs pay taxes on income. The only way around that is to structure the compensation so it's not income, and the IRS probably has tried to prevent that as much as possible. I'm not a tax or HR expert but I'd think unrealized gains on stock compensation might not be. Deferred compensation might not be, until it's actually paid.
Yeah, notice periods are typical at that level even in the USA where they're not often used for the rank and file. A star candidate may have had sufficient leverage to negotiate them away, but I don't expect that to have been the case here.
Sometimes a new employer will offer compensation for any loss of stock options and/or to indemnify against any claim for breach of contract or similar.
But it could also be that Mongo have simply agreed to release him - he was only there for 10 months, and might not have turned out to be a great fit. Their share price has been more or less level in that time whilst competitors have been rising so it's not as if he had notable immediate success in boosting their appeal to enterprise customers.
Anytime someone is at a company for less than a year and "departs," rightly or wrongly I assume there was some lack of meeting of the minds. I've known professional friends in that position but never asked about details.
The only thing that might give me pause is that there's no conciliatory language coming from Mongodb to indicate that it was a negotiated exit, not even a bland "by mutual agreement".
In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to minimise any mention of him which, to me, suggests that it might have been worded that way based on legal advice rather than for PR reasons.
We don't have to guess, his offer letter is public record:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1441816/000162828025...
As far as I can tell, there is no notice period.
Folks, we also need to address why meta hired the guy if failing up hypothesis is to gain ground. Meta is either part of the problem, stupid, or wants his connections all arguably bad.
I wonder if people like this actually try to get into the company, or if they just got a very attractive offer instead?
So when you say "try", it's not like he was leetcoding on the side or anything. The way roles work at this level is a combination of network, exec recruiters, and eventually you talk comp. I hate to stereotype, but I'm going to assume in this case that there is someone senior at Meta that he is strongly connected to who referred him in. And by "referred him in" I don't mean submitted his name to some recruiter, I mean informing him the role even existed and making sure he was on the short list of consideration. Often this person is even the hiring manager, these are not roles you just let the recruiting pipeline fill with any person who fits the screening profile.
By "try", I mean there's a difference between applying and getting accepted, and getting an offer out of the blue. They've sent out some unsolicited offers before, and poached some executives that way, so that's why I ask.
You're right though that the process in practice can be more fuzzy (e.g., you weren't looking, but heard of an attractive opportunity and then applied that way).
I've always wanted model sharding.
People still use MongoDB?
Finally web scale
working class people here thinking c level positions are billionaire corporations follow the same rules at small business (which startups are even lower)
exec on corporations is more about trust, family, and connections than anything else. previous work is mostly irrelevant.
MongoDB is dying. Netcraft confirms it.
Funny, two companies i think really suck exchange their CEO.
MongoDB a product which had hard issues with keeping data, never solved a real problem.
And then Meta...
Garbage in garbage out?
Meta stock down 4% on the news...
Right, and lets ignore the fact that Meta rocketed up 50% in a month, and the rest of the market is also down ~1% because of crude going up.
-4% means nothing in context.
It doesn't mean Meta is burning down, but it does mean the market is not convinced the Meta Enterprise Platform is going to be some exciting new business direction.
He doesn't believe in Mongodb anymore. That is how I read it.
I was surprised Facebook Workplace lasted as long as it did. But, hey, it took Google a few tries to get GCP (anyone remember the Search Appliance?) to a solid place so I wouldn't count Meta out of being able to make an enterprise splash just yet.
This is insane
I still think regular people, and markets, have not caught onto the implications of superintelligence. Its happening, and the tech oligarchs have seen it behind closed doors
Yeah, it's definitely this and not that Meta probably offered him a salary package that ensures generational wealth measured in centuries. Definitely the science fiction scenario, that is totally the realistic one and not a greedy wealthy CEO doing something that enables their greed.
I think so too.
Just now in 2026 we start to see glimpses of AI supremacy, e.g. navier stokes.
It’s similar to the deep blue moment. It took a while before consumer hardware could beat Kasparov, but the watershed moment was deep blue.
I reckon some private demos using far more compute than is available to us peasants convinced the tech oligarchs 3 years ago to pursue their seemingly coordinated AI push.
lol
Finally we'll get authentic webscale AI.
in case anyone who doesn't get the reference: https://youtu.be/b2F-DItXtZs?si=gxrqufTAy-YQ88wW
Does Muse support sharding?
Yes but only when using /dev/null for backing the shard storage layer
thought it was million monkeys consistency, so `/dev/urandom`
But is MongoDB's stock web scale?
Because there might now be people on this site literally born after that fad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
I wish he'd make more videos - they were really funny
https://www.youtube.com/@gar1t/videos
Speaking of xtranormal, around the same time there was a great treatment of the lean startup (you have to iterate!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J9KhpgYVB0
I worked at IMVU [1] so it was extra funny.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMVU
Web scale is old hat. We're now on planet scale.
thats an excellent question
needs more sharding.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
I mean, Mongo is to be a $600 dollar stock imho. You see, the amount logs AI creates or intermediary text storage it creates is just stunning. Nice entry for leaps. Plus, Mongo swiftly added their vector db too. It’s a obvious play.
I wonder if they’ll pair him with another acquisition like Porcupine. META has now realized how much money there is in selling a picks and shovels (as we see with Muse Spark).
Facebook going to be selling Muse into your company as your AI coworker
>Desai led product and engineering at Cloudflare
Well, this could end meta :) Once I get the Cloudflare prompt I bail assuming the site does not what me to read their content.
Yes, the number of sites I go to is decreasing daily, but gopher, gemini and USENET is still around and seems to be slowly growing.