Former Slack CEO Lidiane Jones Joins Silversmith Capital Partners as Senior Advisor
BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Silversmith Capital Partners, a growth equity firm focused on supporting the best entrepreneurs in technology and healthcare, today announced that Lidiane Jones, an accomplished technology executive and former CEO of Slack and Bumble, has joined the firm as a Senior Advisor. Lidiane brings more than two decades of deep leadership, technical and product experience, having held senior roles at some of the world's most innovative technology companies.
"I'm honored to join Silversmith as a Senior Advisor and look forward to supporting entrepreneurs who are building the next generation of market-leading technology businesses." -- Lidiane Jones
Share
With a proven track record of delivering impactful products across enterprise scalability, machine learning, and consumer productivity, Lidiane will bring valuable industry insight, strategic guidance, and investment perspective to Silversmith and its portfolio companies.
'Having known Lidiane for many years, I've long admired her technical expertise, product intuition, and ability to lead at scale,' said Jim Quagliaroli, Managing Partner at Silversmith Capital Partners. 'From her early days as a software engineer at Microsoft to leading category-defining companies like Slack and Bumble, Lidiane has consistently demonstrated world-class leadership. We're thrilled to welcome her to Silversmith as a Senior Advisor and look forward to the impact she will have across the firm and our portfolio.'
A seasoned CEO, Lidiane most recently served as CEO of Bumble. Prior to that, she was appointed CEO of Slack following its acquisition by Salesforce, transitioning from her executive leadership role within Salesforce to guide Slack's integration and future direction. During her tenure, she also led efforts to bring generative AI into workplace collaboration. Before taking the helm at Slack, Lidiane held several senior positions at Salesforce, including Executive Vice President and General Manager of Commerce Cloud, Experience Cloud, and Marketing Cloud, where she played a key role in driving product innovation and customer engagement. Earlier in her career, she spent four years at Sonos leading software product experiences, and 13 years at Microsoft, where she began as a software engineer on Excel and rose to lead major initiatives across Office, Azure Machine Learning, and enterprise management and oversaw several of the company's post-acquisition integration efforts.
'It's an exciting time to be working with growth-stage companies as they lead, scale and innovate,' said Lidiane Jones. 'I'm honored to join Silversmith as a Senior Advisor and look forward to supporting entrepreneurs who are building the next generation of market-leading technology businesses.'
About Silversmith Capital Partners
Founded in 2015, Silversmith Capital Partners is a Boston-based growth equity firm with $3.3 billion of capital under management. Silversmith's mission is to partner with and support the best entrepreneurs in growing, profitable technology and healthcare companies. Representative investments include ActiveCampaign, Appfire, Apryse, DistroKid, impact.com, Iodine Software, LifeStance Health, Onbe, and Webflow. For more information, including a full list of portfolio investments, visit www.silversmith.com or follow the firm on LinkedIn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Android Authority
2 hours ago
- Android Authority
These two apps finally fixed my creative workflow
Dhruv Bhutani / Android Authority For years, Notion has been my go-to for organizing everything from invoices to movie watchlists. Its flexibility as a database is unmatched, but when it came to creative workflows like jotting down spontaneous ideas, threading together thoughts, and collecting visual inspiration, that's where Notion starts to feel a bit rigid. I needed something that didn't ask me to file every passing idea into a system the moment it showed up. That's just not how a creative flow works. At least not for me. I needed a tool that didn't ask every idea to fit into a system the moment it showed up. I know, I know. Obsidian is the usual answer here with its unending customisation and the famed graph view. But I wanted something cloud-first. So I began looking for a tool that could complement, if not replace, what Notion already does so well. That's how I found myself bouncing between Notion and Capacities for the better part of a year. Like most people trying to organize their digital life, I started with one, flirted with the other, then went back and forth until I realized something simple: these two tools aren't competing. They're completing each other. Here's why building a system that uses both apps works so well for me. Capacities is where I think, Notion is where I act Dhruv Bhutani / Android Authority The trick, as always, wasn't picking a side at the get-go. It was figuring out what each tool is actually good at — and then staying out of their way. That realization changed how I approached both tools. For example, I stopped using Notion as a space for unstructured notes. Not because it can't do that, but because it never felt natural. You can create endless pages and subpages, sure. You can embed anything you want. But that multi-page hierarchy quickly spirals out of control. I was using Notion to catalog interesting places in cities I want to visit, and over time, that structure became a maze — multiple layers deep, hard to navigate, and harder to maintain. Notion thrives when there's structure and purpose. It's where I build systems that are borderline automatic in execution. Capacities works best when there's none. It's where I think. The moment I stopped trying to force one app to do it all, things clicked, and I could move between them without friction, letting each tool handle what it's built for instead of bending it into something it's not. Capacities doesn't ask you to polish your thoughts before capturing them. It's not just a user interface issue. It's a mindset issue. Notion forces you establish tables, databases and more the moment you decide to enter in some data. This makes me feel like every idea needs a home before it even exists. That pressure to organize too early kills my creative flow and inhibits how much I use Notion. I might have the ideas, but the environment doesn't feel right. You wouldn't want to work in Google Sheets for capturing ideas. Notion's rigidity has the same effect. Capacities flips that dynamic. You don't start with a table or a template — you start with an object. Notes, images, bookmarks, and files are all loosely organized by type and stitched together with backlinks. It's closer to how Obsidian works and feels more like a living network than a rigid notebook. That one shift changes everything. I don't worry about where a thought belongs. I just capture it, drop in a few tags, and move on. I'll clean it up later. Or not. A place to gather ideas without having to polish them first Dhruv Bhutani / Android Authority When I'm in creative mode doing anything from writing to outlining something vague, my go-to app is Capacities. If I'm collecting screenshots, reference visuals, creating to-do notes or compiling quotes across multiple articles, it all goes there, easily cross-referenced by Capacities' take on a graph view. I can write half a thought, leave it for a week, and come back to find it already connected to three other ideas I forgot I had. That's not just good design. That's momentum. And it is critical in allowing me to jump back into work and be in a creative space almost immediately. Trying to think in Notion can feel like brainstorming in a spreadsheet. At the risk of sounding loquacious, Capacities offers an environment that invites exploration. This includes the way Capacities treats images which can be inline, full-bleed, or tied to objects allowing you to effectively turn it into a gallery, not just a document. That might seem like a small thing, but when you're spending hours sketching outlines or piecing together visual references, it adds up. You're not just writing. You're effectively building an interconnected web of ideas — something I've struggled with in Notion. Apple's wildly different FreeForm tool offers the closest, but not quite the same, experience. On the other hand, Notion doesn't work like that. It's structured. Precise. Sometimes a little too precise. But that's exactly why it works so well for everything else. Notion is still where my life lives Dhruv Bhutani / Android Authority Capacities may be better for thinking, but Notion still runs the day-to-day. This is where I track invoices, update my reading list, monitor freelance projects, and check off recurring tasks. When I know what I'm tracking — things like client deliverables, brand campaigns, editorial calendars — Notion is unbeatable. I can build databases with views and filters, connect them with automation, and set up reminders that actually help. It's purpose-built for that kind of work. Tools like Notion Forms make it a killer home for long-term data, and on-the-fly additions. Unlike Capacities, Notion offers a kind of safety in knowing that everything has a place. If I log something today, I'll know exactly where to find it three weeks later. It also makes it incredibly easy to add data on the go. When I want to add something quickly like, say, a new restaurant I've spotted on Instagram, I use a Notion Form I set up to log key details straight into my food database. Name, location, cuisine, tags, and that's it. The form is saved as a bookmark on my phone's homepage and lets me accomplish the task in seconds. That's the kind of frictionless utility Notion excels at. I've tried doing that inside Capacities, and while there is a table view, it still feels like an afterthought. It's not really built for structured data entry, nor is it very good at making sense of large volumes of data. They solve different problems — so stop comparing them Dhruv Bhutani / Android Authority The biggest mistake is thinking these two tools are solving the same problem. They're not. They both let you write, collect, embed, and organize. But what they do with those abilities is totally different. Capacities is designed for creativity and knowledge exploration. Similar to Obsidian, everything in its interface is nudging you to connect ideas through backlinks, nested objects, graph views. It's less of a productivity tool and more of a creative studio. When I'm not quite sure what I'm working on, but I know I want to chase an idea, Capacities gives me the room to do that. Notion, on the other hand, is more like a traditional work tool. It doesn't ask you to explore. It asks you to decide, define, and commit. And that matters because how we feel when using these tools often dictates whether we use them at all. While it is certainly possible to use either of these tools exclusively, Notion's structured approach to data types makes it feel like a chore. In fact, I've tried to commit to Notion several times, but every single time it felt I was underusing it because my notes were messy or incomplete. But that wasn't a Notion problem. That was a mismatch. Once I gave that role to Capacities instead, Notion stopped feeling like a burden and started being useful again. The takeaway There's no straight-up winner here. Capacities helped me get comfortable with a messy workflow again. It gave me back the ability to think in fragments and collect ideas without committing. It's a tool for planning and for users still getting used to the idea of knowledge management. In fact, I'd say it's the perfect PKM tool for the first-time user. On the other hand, Notion helps me make order out of chaos. It's the tool I trust to hold the pieces together once I know what they are. Be it large databases of pitches, invoices, things to do, restaurants to check out, Notion is great for that kind of workflow. That said, at the end of the day, both tools taught me to stop looking for the perfect app and start building a better workflow instead. For me, it was a combination of Capacities and Notion.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
How faulty DOGE AI tool impacted VA contracts
The code, using outdated and inexpensive AI models, produced results with glaring mistakes. For instance, it hallucinated the size of contracts, frequently misreading them and inflating their value. It concluded more than a thousand were each worth $34 million, when in fact some were for as little as $35,000. The DOGE AI tool flagged more than 2,000 contracts for 'munching.' It's unclear how many have been or are on track to be canceled — the Trump administration's decisions on VA contracts have largely been a black box. The VA uses contractors for many reasons, including to support hospitals, research and other services aimed at caring for ailing veterans. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up VA officials have said they've killed nearly 600 contracts overall. Congressional Democrats have been pressing VA leaders for specific details of what's been canceled without success. Advertisement We identified at least two dozen on the DOGE list that have been canceled so far. Among the canceled contracts was one to maintain a gene sequencing device used to develop better cancer treatments. Another was for blood sample analysis in support of a VA research project. Another was to provide additional tools to measure and improve the care nurses provide. Advertisement ProPublica obtained the code and the contracts it flagged from a source and shared them with a half dozen AI and procurement experts. All said the script was flawed. Many criticized the concept of using AI to guide budgetary cuts at the VA, with one calling it 'deeply problematic.' Cary Coglianese, professor of law and of political science at the University of Pennsylvania who studies the governmental use and regulation of artificial intelligence, said he was troubled by the use of these general-purpose large language models, or LLMs. 'I don't think off-the-shelf LLMs have a great deal of reliability for something as complex and involved as this,' he said. Sahil Lavingia, the programmer enlisted by DOGE, which was then run by Elon Musk, acknowledged flaws in the code. 'I think that mistakes were made,' said Lavingia, who worked at DOGE for nearly two months. 'I'm sure mistakes were made. Mistakes are always made. I would never recommend someone run my code and do what it says. It's like that 'Office' episode where Steve Carell drives into the lake because Google Maps says drive into the lake. Do not drive into the lake.' Though Lavingia has talked about his time at DOGE previously, this is the first time his work has been examined in detail and the first time he's publicly explained his process, down to specific lines of code. Lavingia has nearly 15 years of experience as a software engineer and entrepreneur but no formal training in AI. He briefly worked at Pinterest before starting Gumroad, a small e-commerce company that nearly collapsed in 2015. 'I laid off 75% of my company — including many of my best friends. It really sucked,' he said. Lavingia kept the company afloat by 'replacing every manual process with an automated one,' according to Advertisement Lavingia did not have much time to immerse himself in how the VA handles veterans' care between starting on March 17 and writing the tool on the following day. Yet his experience with his own company aligned with the direction of the Trump administration, which has embraced the use of AI across government to streamline operations and save money. Lavingia said the quick timeline of Under a time crunch, Lavingia said he finished the first version of his contract-munching tool on his second day on the job — using AI to help write the code for him. He told ProPublica he then spent his first week downloading VA contracts to his laptop and analyzing them. VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz lauded DOGE's work on vetting contracts in a statement to ProPublica. 'As far as we know, this sort of review has never been done before, but we are happy to set this commonsense precedent,' he said. The VA is reviewing all of its 76,000 contracts to ensure each of them benefits veterans and is a good use of taxpayer money, he said. Decisions to cancel or reduce the size of contracts are made after multiple reviews by VA employees, including agency contracting experts and senior staff, he wrote. Advertisement Kasperowicz said that the VA will not cancel contracts for work that provides services to veterans or that the agency cannot do itself without a contingency plan in place. He added that contracts that are 'wasteful, duplicative or involve services VA has the ability to perform itself' will typically be terminated. Trump officials have said they are working toward a The VA has said it would avoid cutting contracts that directly impact care out of fear that it would cause harm to veterans. ProPublica recently reported that relatively small cuts at the agency have already The VA has not explained how it plans to simultaneously move services in-house, as Lavingia's code suggested was the plan, while also slashing staff. Many inside the VA told ProPublica the process for reviewing contracts was so opaque they couldn't even see who made the ultimate decisions to kill specific contracts. Once the 'munching' script had selected a list of contracts, Lavingia said he would pass it off to others who would decide what to cancel and what to keep. No contracts, he said, were terminated 'without human review.' 'I just delivered the [list of contracts] to the VA employees,' he said. 'I basically put munchable at the top and then the others below.' VA staffers told ProPublica that when DOGE identified contracts to be canceled early this year — before Lavingia was brought on — employees sometimes were given little time to justify retaining the service. One recalled being given just a few hours. The staffers asked not to be named because they feared losing their jobs for talking to reporters. Advertisement According to one internal email that predated Lavingia's AI analysis, staff members had to respond in 255 characters or fewer — just shy of the 280 character limit on Musk's X social media platform. Once he started on DOGE's contract analysis, Lavingia said he was confronted with technological limitations. At least some of the errors produced by his code can be traced to using older versions of OpenAI models available through the VA — models not capable of solving complex tasks, according to the experts consulted by ProPublica. Moreover, the tool's underlying instructions were deeply flawed. Records show Lavingia programmed the AI system to make intricate judgments based on the first few pages of each contract — about the first 2,500 words — which contain only sparse summary information. 'AI is absolutely the wrong tool for this,' said Waldo Jaquith, a former Obama appointee who oversaw IT contracting at the Treasury Department. 'AI gives convincing looking answers that are frequently wrong. There needs to be humans whose job it is to do this work.' Lavingia's prompts did not include context about how the VA operates, what contracts are essential or which ones are required by federal law. This led AI to determine a core piece of the agency's own contract procurement system was 'munchable.' At the core of Lavingia's prompt is the direction to spare contracts involved in 'direct patient care.' Such an approach, experts said, doesn't grapple with the reality that the work done by doctors and nurses to care for veterans in hospitals is only possible with significant support around them. Advertisement Lavingia's system also used AI to extract details like the contract number and 'total contract value.' This led to avoidable errors, where AI returned the wrong dollar value when multiple were found in a contract. Experts said the correct information was readily available from public databases. Lavingia acknowledged that errors resulted from this approach but said those errors were later corrected by VA staff. In late March, Lavingia published a version of the 'munchable' script According That openness may have eventually led to Lavingia's dismissal. Lavingia confirmed he was VA officials have declined to say whether they will continue to use the 'munchable' tool moving forward. But the administration may deploy AI to help the agency replace employees. Documents previously obtained by ProPublica show DOGE officials proposed in March consolidating the benefits claims department by relying more on AI. And the government's contractors are paying attention. After Lavingia posted his code, he said he heard from people trying to understand how to keep the money flowing. 'I got a couple DMs from VA contractors who had questions when they saw this code,' he said. 'They were trying to make sure that their contracts don't get cut. Or learn why they got cut. 'At the end of the day, humans are the ones terminating the contracts, but it is helpful for them to see how DOGE or Trump or the agency heads are thinking about what contracts they are going to munch. Transparency is a good thing.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Skip Microsoft 365 Fees: This Microsoft Office 2021 Download Is Just $49.97
The following content is brought to you by PCMag partners. If you buy a product featured here, we may earn an affiliate commission or other compensation. If you're tired of paying monthly for Microsoft 365, there's a cost-effective solution. You can make a one-time purchase and get a license to Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for just $49.97 (Reg. $219.99) through StackSocial. That means no recurring fees — just unfettered access to the Office tools you use most. This license includes full versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote, Publisher, and Access, all downloaded directly to your Windows PC. Unlike the cloud-based Microsoft 365 suite, these programs are installed locally, so you won't need an internet connection to use them. And because it's a standalone purchase, you won't be impacted by Microsoft's future subscription price hikes or feature rollbacks. It's also a great option if you rely on apps like Publisher or Access, which aren't included in all newer subscription tiers. This license ensures you'll have the software you need without worrying about losing access due to changing plans or annual costs. Keep in mind: this license is tied to one PC. If you get a new computer, you'll need a new license. But for the lifetime of your current device, it's yours to use with no strings attached. Get a Microsoft Office Professional 2021 license for just $49.97 (Reg. $219.99) and enjoy reliable, full-featured software without monthly payments. Prices subject to change. PCMag editors select and review products independently. If you buy through StackSocial affiliate links, we may earn commissions, which help support our testing.
