News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel's "cripple AMD" function by djcapelis on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:39AM (#1029847)
> For instance, I, a lowly intern, redeployed software to the

> production line during an emergency. If something went

> wrong, chips would actually stop rolling out of the factory.

While I'm all for letting engineers react to things progressively, that you were in position where a screw up could have shut down a fab as an intern is nothing short of terrifying to me.

Re:Intel's "cripple AMD" function by drewcrawford on Tuesday January 05, 2010 @03:17AM (#1032083)
> That you were in position where a screw up could have shut down a fab as an intern is nothing short of terrifying to me.

To me, the converse is a lot scarier: what if I, feeling no personal responsibility for yield, wasn't there after-hours looking for bugs in the first place? Or what if I did find the critical bug, but had to wait weeks for forms before it was pushed through? Or was blocked by office politics?

There's nothing more disheartening as having a fix for something serious that you can't push through. I've worked at companies like that: taking away the power to break something means taking away the power to make it better.

Not to say that I somehow dislike code reviews or generally fly by the seat of my pants: the situation really was a real emergency. I can't talk specifics, but the bug had already cost more than the damage it would do to if I broke something.

Re:Intel's "cripple AMD" function by regularfry on Tuesday January 05, 2010 @07:35AM (#1032283)
Toyota have a very similar rule that they actively promote: every worker has a button with which they can shut the line down if they see something wrong.

It seems to work for them...