Meh... I made 2 mistakes. 1st was not seeing another post already created about this. The 2nd was misreading the annoucement. I had thought it read the workforce was reduced from 300 to 70, not reduced by 70.
Meh... I made 2 mistakes. 1st was not seeing another post already created about this. The 2nd was misreading the annoucement. I had thought it read the workforce was reduced from 300 to 70, not reduced by 70.
Please read instructions carefully.
Furthermore, you haven't calculated what's the percentage of truth in your initial statement. That's your punishment for a bad usage of mathematics and statistics.
Don't worry Alderidge, I didn't see Sir E.'s post either and made a similiar one.
Especially because I saw the post on a Sunday night and was beyond surprised to see the boards as "business as usual".
Yeah, that's pretty much the reaction I had. Plus with misreading it as 77% reduction I thought, "OMG, no one must have seen this for there to be no massive post feast over it.." Glad the reduction isn't as bad as it first appeared, but in my opinion, any reduction has little chance of being an improvement unless it is the off chance they are cleaning house and getting rid of the in-house riff-raff.