Ukraine

Oh, I wasn't laughing at the cruelties of war, I was laughing at your musings about supposed boardroom antics. Just my humble opinion, but I really think you should have started that with, "Once upon a time" .. Lots of corporations value their reputation as much as their assets. And rightly so. It is why "Goodwill" is a separate and sometimes large factor on a financial statement. That is why so many won't even get near the woke games such as the Bud light one, let alone be seen to condone the likes of Putin.

 

Much of my career was spent doing the data analysis of customer sentiment and behaviour on behalf of many companies. I saw the campaign publications and decisions that resulted from the data analysis. In business terms, 'good will' is about either customer retention or loss mitigation.

Here's some light reading on one aspect of customer analysis.
RFM Segmentation, Analysis & Model Marketing | Optimove

 

I'm still entitled to my opinion. Bottom line. The situation smelled so they got out before the stench reached home.

 

Of course you are. But there is a difference between the right to express opinion and the right to mock someone else's.

 

I wasn't mocking what your were saying. I was making a point that your comments regarding boardroom activities are only musings and I find them amusing. Unless you actually attended these meetings and made decisions about the fate of these stores, aren't you are making very large suppositions. Did you actually attend these meetings? Did you personally present your data at these meetings and steer the decision making to follow your conclusions? If you weren't there, then you really don't know.

And neither do I.

 

I attend meetings with the board roughly every three months when not much is going on. Much more frequently when something is going on. I am usually brought in to give tech advice relating to the data, explain analyses, and explain what is feasible in terms of system changes, but I don't make the decisions.

But all of this is irrelevant. The fact remains, my opinion is based on experience of industry standard practices, yours appears to be based on sentiment, yet you decided mine was worth mocking without offering anything solid to demonstrate I am wrong.

If you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, I will happily take that on board and re-evaluate my views. Mockery won't make me do that as I have enough industry experience to have confidence in what I say. One of the things I'm proud of is I don't let my ego get in the way of the facts, and throughout my career I have listened openly to people at all levels, from directors down to junior new starters, and I continue to do so. I've always maintained that if someone can demonstrate I'm wrong, or that there's a better way to do something, or there's some relevant info I didn't know about, I actually welcome this, as that's how I learn. With this in mind, I'd welcome anything you have to offer that demonstrates that I might be wrong, as that would be a learning opportunity for me.

 

Okey dokey @Clueless 1 v2 .

This is my version of why companies pulled out of Russia.

The board room got together and started talking about all of the civilians being killed by the Russians and how Russia has long been a bully. They had a good cry and then got angry and decided to grab their ball and go home. They weren't going to play with those mean people anymore!

 

Does anyone have thoughts on the way this war seems to be spinning towards a nuclear mode of attack?

I think Putin has lost the plot and probably fantasizes about hitting the button but is he huffing and bluffing?

 

I hope it's just bravado, if it goes nuclear I'm not sure where that could end.
Besides I've got onions and sweetcorn coming along, it would be a shame to waste it.

 

My understanding is that Ukraine is the first time that companies have volutarily withdrawn from a terrorist state - previously they have been forced through legislation to withdraw. This tells me that the outrage of the invasion - at board level - had to be acted upon. This is Government and private industry working separately but in tandem to bash Putin - and its working.

Putin is losing with conventional weapons - the world knows that he is a big fat liar so his threat of nuclear weapons is nonsense. He knows that he will be gone very soon after a nuke is launched. Someone will stop him. His fancy hypersonic missiles that would be used to delver nukes can be knocked out of the sky by Patriot. Russia a shell of a country - hollowed out by corruption.

 

Not sure I would want to be under a missile that had been taken out by a patriot.

 

Me neither. The ones that are being taken out at the moment are bad enough without the radioactive component. Don't know how well the bomb part would withstand the explosion. Possibly even be enough to detonate it, seeing as it is explosives that start the nuclear reaction.

 

From Science ABC:

What If A Nuclear Missile Is Shot Midway Through Its Flight?
First off, it should be noted that it’s not particularly easy to shoot down a nuclear missile. Truth be told, it’s actually quite difficult. There are a number of reasons behind the strength of such missiles (like Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or ICBMs), including their greater range and speed than other ballistic missiles.

Still, there do exist countermeasures that could destroy a nuclear missile before it reaches its target and detonates.

So, when these anti-ballistic missiles hit nuclear missiles in the air, do the latter explode and cause a nuclear explosion?

Short answer: It’s very unlikely.

As you read above, causing a nuclear bomb to detonate requires a precise orchestration of events, without which the chain reaction does not initiate and the bomb doesn’t detonate. In fact, the very idea behind such anti-ballistic missile systems is that you smash an incoming ICBM with an interceptor missile so that the latter is destroyed before it actually reaches its target.

You see, causing a nuclear explosion (intentionally) is a fairly complicated process. As such, any interceptor missile that hits a nuclear missile is highly unlikely to cause a nuclear explosion.

However, that doesn’t mean that exploding a nuclear missile over a populated area is safe. First off, as mentioned earlier, it’s very difficult to actually intercept an ICBM. Also, if an interceptor missile actually destroys a nuclear missile, it could lead to the plutonium or uranium core falling to the ground, which would consequently be a radiation hazard that could potentially endanger lives.

In a nutshell, a successful shoot-down of a nuclear missile would make a city-flattening bomb into a mere radiation hazard, thus reducing its deadliness by a huge margin.

 

If Putin resorts to the use of nukes, I think it is likely he'd used tactical nukes in the first instance. These should not be underestimated. Some of them have a higher yield than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But they are not the strategic nukes everyone tends to think of that are horrific beyond imagination.

The trouble in that scenario is the obvious risk of escalation. If NATO sat back and did nothing, it would normalise Putin's action. If NATO intervened, then Russian nuclear doctrine would allow for a preemptive strike against NATO territories.

I think the risk of all out nuclear war is minimal. Even Putin understands that nobody can win a nuclear war. Especially considering the Hiroshima bomb was like a pea shooter compared to the weapons of today. The first strategic nuke would be met with a volley of nukes in reply, which in turn would be met with an equally big reply. The result would be the end of the world as we know it. Not that most of us would be around to know it.

The good news is that Putin knows this as well as anyone else. But even if he is insane enough to start it, it is not him alone that gets to pull the trigger.

The bottom line is starting a nuclear war is really an act of suicide and genocide combined, and the decision does not sit with a single person, so you'd have to have a lot of completely insane suicidal maniacs in just the right positions to start it. I think for all the insanity being demonstrated by russian leadership, I think even they know better than to ruin the entire planet likely kill themselves in the process.