skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ideally, the top individual needs to be fully capable of engineering at a level higher than most of their peers, and recognized for that with admiration at every step of their career. This respect is essential as they move through their careers toward positions where they will no longer be tasked with continuing to do very much more engineering personally themselves. From that point they will be dependent on their engineering staff and there has got to be a nice gradient up and down the line so every little transition is smooth, and this admiration is maintained. Most things are not ideal but if there is any gap that would make this type of smooth succession impossible in the entire engineering hierarchy, Murphy's Law will add another corollary right there if they don't already have one that you should be aware of.

That same person needs to be also admired likewise for their leadership ability, even when they are not exactly in a leadership position so much of the time when starting out and growing as productive engineers. Over the long run this means co-operation instead of internal competition which can be so destructive. Productive workers of all kinds should naturally favor the direction they envision, and there should always be meaningful positive responses as more leadership responsibilities are gradually shouldered by the suitable outstanding engineers.

And the whole organization should recognize the benefit as responsibility for the momentum of an entire engineering staff increases for those taking on leadership positions.

Nothing's ideal but there's got to always be a way for this to end up being one person possessing both top engineering & leadership abilities, supported by a cast of suitable likewise candidates for smooth succession, or something is wrong.

But that's just for an "engineering company".

There's lots of other kinds of companies for people who are nowhere near this kind of thing at all. There's lots of other things that do make sense too, that's just one of the things that I've seen that is typically so wrong. It can be easy to point fingers, but difficult to do the right thing anyway.
A 20w electric motor is child's play, real women beat the shit out of a horse until it learns to dance.
Cloud flare has it, they are aiming for it. Definite income vs possible income cannot be priced in the same way, assuming the CF valuation is justified.
Absolutely ridiculous behavior. What if an employee didn't have a LinkedIn account or never logs into it?

This is apparently what happens when your HR org is large and bored.
No, the author did not lose any money over capitalization. The author did not understand that capitalization was irrelevant.

What was relevant was that the author failed to properly disclosed a "connected person" as defined in the legal agreement. The law he was referencing would have done nothing to address/correct his failure, regardless of the capitalization used.