"At 38, Agassi is the youngest invitee. Just after the dotcom boom, SAP, the world's largest maker of enterprise software, paid $400 million for a small-business software company he started with his father; now he's SAP's head of products and widely presumed to be the next CEO."
He left SAP a year and a half ago after a massive power-struggle on the executive board where it was clear that he wouldn't be the next CEO. That's why he founded the "not" company that is the topic of this article. Except, well, that it's a VC backed company.
"A few months later, when his boss broke the news that he wouldn't be getting the top job at SAP anytime soon, Agassi shocked just about everyone in the tech world by quitting."
Yeah, my bad. I can see how it was supposed to work in context now, but usually I don't bother to continue reading an article when I get through the first third and there are things that have stopped jiving with reality.
The article jives with reality. At 38, he is the youngest invitee and he is working at SAP. A year and a half later, he is not working at SAP. You just ignored the "at 38" clause.
It's because they continued using the present tense.
Sure, I see what they mean now, but when you're looking at an article and start reading it, and get to a paragraph, written in present tense that claims something that has not been true for a few years, my brain at least labels it incorrect.
This isn't a critical reading skills exam; it's just one of the dozens of articles that crosses my feed-reader everyday and I don't consider that style to have helped the audience follow the author's point.
Comments
Holy blundering errors, Batman:
"At 38, Agassi is the youngest invitee. Just after the dotcom boom, SAP, the world's largest maker of enterprise software, paid $400 million for a small-business software company he started with his father; now he's SAP's head of products and widely presumed to be the next CEO."
He left SAP a year and a half ago after a massive power-struggle on the executive board where it was clear that he wouldn't be the next CEO. That's why he founded the "not" company that is the topic of this article. Except, well, that it's a VC backed company.
"A few months later, when his boss broke the news that he wouldn't be getting the top job at SAP anytime soon, Agassi shocked just about everyone in the tech world by quitting."
I wasn't shocked. In fact I'd no idea that it had happened, or even who he was.
Continue reading, the article mentions that afterwards.
Seriously. Read the entire article before you post comments like that.
Yeah, my bad. I can see how it was supposed to work in context now, but usually I don't bother to continue reading an article when I get through the first third and there are things that have stopped jiving with reality.
The article jives with reality. At 38, he is the youngest invitee and he is working at SAP. A year and a half later, he is not working at SAP. You just ignored the "at 38" clause.
It's because they continued using the present tense.
Sure, I see what they mean now, but when you're looking at an article and start reading it, and get to a paragraph, written in present tense that claims something that has not been true for a few years, my brain at least labels it incorrect.
This isn't a critical reading skills exam; it's just one of the dozens of articles that crosses my feed-reader everyday and I don't consider that style to have helped the audience follow the author's point.