I’m finding this a little difficult to square. If things are radically changing within the company and they’re rearchitecting how the company works, wouldn’t they start with a transition period? Letting 1k people go, many of whom will be important parts of the organization, while simultaneously making radical changes in light of a radical rate of change over the last few months, seems very high risk.
Taking everything at face value, does anyone have thoughts on why this change makes sense now vs. in 6 months? Are they ripping the bandaid off or… due to the size of the org?
> In 2025, lag bolts were by far the biggest problem. They anchor tents, art pieces, and other infrastructure into the ground, and can easily disappear beneath the dust.
I thought of a few potential solutions but then clicked through to the journal entry for last year and it turns out they're way ahead, the journal article is very interesting with some ideas: https://journal.burningman.org/2026/03/black-rock-city/leavi...
Domain registration is already API driven and has been for decades. The most sophisticated domain name investors (or "domain farms") go as far as to own registrars directly so they have instant access to the registries. Nobody involved in domains would use Cloudflare's product because they already have and have had automations for decades.
For example, DropCatch (NameBright) own over 1,000 different registrars so that they have over 1,000 direct routes to Verisign's .com registry. GName are a new player in the space, approaching 1,000 registrars. The amount these companies spend on their registrar licensing alone is many millions of dollars[1].
Cloudflare's product adds nothing new to the world of domains. Anyone has been able to go to OpenSRS and sign up as a reseller with API access for over 20 years.
Cohen is already rich rich, his GameStop compensation doesn’t really matter much. The eBay acquisition could be a strategy to juice his compensation but I think it is much more likely he does believe that he can achieve his stated aims, which will financially benefit him much more in the long term.
> Cohen is already rich rich, his GameStop compensation doesn’t really matter much
I think this argument is much stronger in the opposite direction: if his motivations were not focused on accumulating wealth, he’d be retired or running some kind of charity once he was that far past the point where he had to work. The fact that he’s not suggests that he derives his self-identity from wealth and the guys who do that are rarely satisfied at mid-tier rich.
He wants to be the next Warren Buffett, I believe this is a stated goal, or at least he’s been very clear that this is his inspiration. He wants GameStop to become the next Berkshire.
It’s not always wealth accumulation as driver. It’s often just chasing deals and fixing companies that is fulfilling for some people. But, it’s also the thrill of the hunt and he’s effectively a big game hunter looking for a huge trophy.
Few CEO’s in the US are rewarded for longterm thinking when there are unsustainable quarterly gains to be made. GameStop also has a strange history, especially the last decade, that no one could possibly describe as “cautious” or “planning longterm.”
I also can’t name a single CEO who had the mentality of “I’m rich enough to make personal/financial sacrifices for the good of the company.” That’s simply not how things work. I’m sure an example exists but it would clearly be an exception to the rule.
Yes and it was 1) incredibly notable, 2) 13 years ago, 3) in another country, and 4) following one of their worst performing products ever. Iwata's (maybe voluntary) temporary pay cut was big news because of how exceptional it was.
As of a few months ago yes he does not take a salary anymore and he has actual skin in the game that could pay off in the tens of billions.
Taking $0 is unusual but not unheard of (Musk I think does this too) and it’s very common for CEO’s to make $1mill (or even less) and have like…80%+ of their compensation tied to performance metrics/stock options. There are a lot of caveats to saying “he takes no salary.”
It sounds nice on paper but he isn’t really doing something revolutionary here. He also has rather ambitious numbers to hit if what I’m reading is accurate, so it makes sense he’s taking massive swings like this. We’ll see if it happens, let alone pays off.
I'm not sure the fact that somebody is already rich rich would make them less likely to perform ethically dubious practices to juice their own compensation. In fact I'd say the opposite is more likely.
but that’s not science, right? Dawkins and his ilk cling to science as a cure for religion yet if we are to believe that our absence of understanding of consciousness means computers can be conscious then our absence of understanding of the universe means god may exist.
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
They're an anthropomorphic avatar of everything that is wrong with the business of technology. They're the broken promises of technology with a face. The promise of technology that we've all bought into is a better world, a world that lifts people up, instead we've got these dumb little robots that drive around making it even harder for people to survive. If we lived in a world where everyone's basic needs were met, these little robots would make you feel different.
Deliveries use hands because humans have hands, not because hands are a prerequisite for deliveries. Last mile is already “solved” with the little robots that drive around cities, no need for hands. Humans are useful because of our brains, because we can adapt to almost any situation for very little cost. Humanoid robots will remain a novelty until the cost is reduced far beyond what is plausible.
How do we define common? I’ll bet that in 5 years, the average person, even in somewhere like SF, will not see a humanoid robot during their every day life.
> Last mile is already “solved” with the little robots that drive around cities, no need for hands.
And yet we haven’t seen widespread adoption because they can’t handle stairs, steep slopes, streets without sidewalks, sidewalks with mud, or a hundred other real world challenges
We haven’t seen widespread adoption because they can’t hope to compete with human delivery drivers on cost. The cost to DoorDash and Uber Eats of a delivery driver is nothing upfront and a few dollars per delivery. The cost of a delivery robot is thousands of dollars upfront and more per delivery. Stairs aren’t even in the top 10 problems these robots face, they’re more than capable of delivering to most customers already.
reply