If you’re a B2B SaaS with no CRO, good luck with vendor assessments. B2C you can skip it before reaching a critical mass where regulatory pressures will mandate it.

You completely miss the role of CROs or risk function in an organisation. Using your analogy, the Chief Testing Office would not write the tests. They would establish how test coverage is defined and measured, and the target coverage. They would monitor the progress of each team in meeting these targets. It is a governance role that sits as a second line behind the first line that has the immediate responsibility to manage the risk.

Risk adjusted rates are not traditionally in the mandate of a CRO. They sit with Finance or Treasury. And they should be abstracted from front line, who would experience them only through optimisation of their funding.

This sounds well lined up with what I was saying? The CRO doesn't manage risks. Having him in with the executives is a signal that the company is putting resources into communicating with the regulators rather than that they are committed to managing risks in any way. That isn't what these regulatory-heavy roles are for. Their job is to make sure the regulators don't investigate. That is in no way a signal that the company has any ability at risk management, and is a slight signal that they might think "risk" just means that the government will sue them or shut them down.

If a company were actually serious about managing the risks it'd be some relatively quiet role reporting to someone responsible for operations like a CTO, COO or head of product. Maybe part of the CEOs personal staff but not an exec.

>If a company were actually serious about managing the risks it'd be some relatively quiet role reporting to someone responsible for operations like a CTO, COO or head of product. Maybe part of the CEOs personal staff but not an exec.

Actually, that is the real red flag. That quiet little role is completely overridden by the first inconvenienced exec. Having a C-level at least means the role is considered co-equal, and if outweighed by the rest of the C-team they at least have the resources and discretion to do the best they can with what they have.

The approach you mention is what I call "ablative armor for management" or an accountability sink. Responsibility is delegated, but no authority is actually invested. If they can't say no with sufficient gravitas to upset operations, then they're nothing but a figurehead.

If you don’t depend on someone that’s freedom.

I see a higher chance of him dropping a dirty nuke at home and pretending it’s Iran. Then he can nuke Iran and win the elections too by proving his point that the war was necessary if not delayed. I would be very worried if I were in any of the Democrat states, as one of them would be the chosen target in such a scenario.

What if Iran escalates when US decides to go? I don’t think US can go without leaving a power vacuum, which, given current forces positioning, would benefit Iran most probably. I don’t see a path to helping Gulf nations, which will pragmatically be inclined to work with Iran as neither of them can leave like US can.

We already have our jobs on the line with AI, right? How will a crash be worse in personal terms?

There's a lot of people who think the only thing keeping us out of a serious recession or even depression is AI investment.

I have an unsubstantiated understanding Ai investment is disproportionately capital intensive, and at least partially funded by self-fulfilling dreams of employment disappearing. Parts of the economy are already in recession and they would not mind not being alone in it.

What it misses is that the 80% of soldiers who were not firing was still required. Not everyone has the same product, and someone’s product exists at an abstraction layer above the outcome and towards the organisation that builds it, as ugly and inefficient as it may be judged in comparison to an army of perfect contributors that does not exist.

I agree wholeheartedly, I don’t see any balance in the effort someone dedicated to generating text vs me consuming it. If you feel there’s further insight to be gained by an llm, give me the prompt, not the output. Any communication channel reflects a balance of information content flowing and we are still adjusting to the proper etiquette.

Yes, languages that talk to llms that is.

You could relax sanctions in exchange for other priorities. A persistent pain is less effective than an acute one anyway. There’s carrots too in negotiations. But no, we cannot do what a previous president did.

How much of the current situation is a result of that previous deal?

The deal basically stopped iran's nuclear program but allowed the regime to better send money and guns to its proxy network.

The current war is effectively the downstream consequences of Iran's proxy network going off the leash.

Ultimately, negotiations work best with both a carrot and a stick. If its just a carrot, and no deal would be unacceptable to one of the parties, then the logical thing for the other party would be to always hold out.

----

In any case, in this specific situation (regardless of how we got here), its hard to imagine that Iran could have made a deal and survived. The regime is very weak at home and its questionable if they could have survived the loss of face to agree to what usa wanted.