After five years of leadership the bottom line is value of investment to shareholders has tripled. Mission accomplished. Who cared about Yahoo web business even then anyway.
I don't know, it mentions that she had "little control" over the investments, but then goes on to explain that:
managing those investments was a key reason that Yahoo’s board hired Ms. Mayer. Mr. Loeb had accused Yahoo’s previous leaders of mishandling both their core business and the Alibaba relationship.... Ms. Mayer delegated the Alibaba issue, hiring an experienced dealmaker, Jacqueline Reses, to be the company’s principal liaison to Alibaba and its leaders, Jack Ma and Joseph Tsai. Ms. Reses helped the Chinese company navigate its initial public offering. She also renegotiated an agreement, struck just before Ms. Mayer arrived, that would have forced Yahoo to sell an additional 122 million shares in the offering. Those extra shares are now worth $15 billion.
Yeah but those stocks were going up regardless. I thought the only point in Yahoo existing for the past few years was trying to figure out some way to avoid tax on selling the alibaba/yahoo japan stake. Yahoo critically failed at that and when it did it got sold soon after. Not sure if this all looks good for Mayer as a good value creating leader.
I see a lot of ads in the highway rest areas against slavery translated in multiple languages. There is hotline phone number on them. Its so easy to report to authorities they even encourage you. Every time i saw them i thought slavery in our day and age??? Now i know better.
Of course there was also no rule saying that chess functioned on a restrictive rules system and a lot of evidence that it instead functioned on a permissive system. Which would invalidate the "no rule says I can't" argument.
(when designing a game's rules, "restrictive" means the approach is "everything is permitted by default, unless explicitly restricted", while "permissive" means "everything is forbidden by default unless explicitly permitted" -- if we assume that chess is a restrictive-rules game, we can similarly mate in one from almost any position by simply inventing new pieces with unusual abilities and declaring that "the rules don't say you can't!")
If the rule was simply, "A promoted pawn may be exchanged for any piece," then that would fit within a permissive system, and still qualify as "nothing says you have to promote to the same color."
No. It was unclear whether you could promote to a piece of the other colour, but a conforming implementation of chess will not make demons fly out of your nose.
