Everybody in the thread so far has a pretty bitter take, and I agree that golden parachutes are a joke. But I want to offer a more neutral explanation:
Basically, for an executive at a near-CEO level, taking on a position at a new company involves a lot of risk. Companies want to hire a top executive who's willing to take a career risk without having to consider their own bottom line. A golden parachute removes personal risk.
Now, it might seem like this runs contrary to the company's own interests, but they exist to attract CEOs and other top executives. They're meant to make an offer more attractive, and any offer that doesn't include it will be less competitive.
In the grand scheme of things, the illusion that Russia can just wait out the West's appetite for war is definitely shattered. It's now clear Putin is running out his own clock.
That's still a concerning development as I'm sure nobody wants the Russian state devolving into pure chaos, or for someone even more hardline than Putin to take his place. That's why I'm not too hot on people cheering for Russia's collapse.
In the grand scheme of things, the illusion that Russia can just wait out the West's appetite for war is definitely shattered. It's now clear Putin is running out his own clock.
That's still a concerning development as I'm sure nobody wants the Russian state devolving into pure chaos, or for someone even more hardline than Putin to take his place. That's why I'm not too hot on people cheering for Russia's collapse.
The fact we can't even agree that sex and gender are two different things is the final proof to me that the Right is arguing in bad faith. It's such a simple concept to grasp.
One podcaster was suggesting we use male/female/intersex to refer to biological sex, and man/woman/etc. to refer to gender identity. Such an obvious and non-controversial idea, yet it'll never fly with the transphobes.