I first read this title as "Ford replacing CEO with self driving car." That would have brought new meaning to the struggle of labor vs. automation, but alas it wasn't meant to be.

It was embellished for hakcernews, and it isn't present in the linked article.

Actually the NYT headline just is "Ford Motor Is Replacing Mark Fields as C.E.O.".

How about: "Ford hopes to push self-driving cars by replacing 56 year old CEO with 62 year old CEO with a background in office furniture" ?

Why is age even relevant? Ageism isn't a fun thing to look forward to. If I make it to 56 I hope it doesn't get branded onto my professional accomplishments.

Oh I hear you - I'm closer to 56 than I'd like to be (mid forties). The point is Ford apparently tries to send a signal to shareholders that they have a clue about being a real player in self driving cars and this message is odd - seems more about slowing the decline in _existing_ revenue than generating new.

While there are 62 year olds who are quite comfortable with new technology and new ways of working, required to transform and innovate, you and I both know that _on average_ the older people get, the more they struggle with change and learning new things.

On average, it may be true to say that certain minority groups may be more violent or less intelligent. That doesn't mean it's ok to treat them as such.

It may seem like a glib comparison, and I hope it's substantive enough that it doesn't start a flamewar. But if one person can come to see ageism as equally valid as racism, then they can teach others, who will teach others, and eventually it will no longer be a problem.

According to Bill Ford, Jim pushed Steel Case to think about the workplace of the future! and build office stuff people want them

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/companies/ford-ceo-fiel...

At the CEO level of large, complex organizations, business experience and acumen, as well as legal and political experience, is much more important than background in specific technologies.

After whipping Boeing into shape, Alan Mulally was 60 when he took over in 2006 to lead Ford through the financial crisis.

You mean to beg taxpayers for money?

Ford undoubtedly benefited some from cash for clunkers and loose money, but it didn't do any emergency borrowing from the government.

Incorrect.[0]

[0]: https://energy.gov/lpo/ford

> NYT probably has some data saying that any headline including "self dirivng car" gets more eyeballs.

The NYT headline is "Ford Motor Is Replacing Mark Fields as C.E.O.". Also, they do not give any more emphasis on "self-driving" than needed.

> Jim Hackett, who oversees the Ford subsidiary that works on autonomous vehicles, will take the reins from Mr. Fields. Ford plans to make an announcement on Monday morning, the officials said.

It might just be that he's Ford's top guy, so they put him in charge of Ford's biggest problem.

Though Ford's in-house autonomy efforts have been going nowhere fast. Then they started up Argo AI, another separate 'silicon valley style' company under ex-google SDC program manager Brian Salesky, and Jim Hackett was nowhere to be seen all through the press conferences and media accompanying that announcement, so I'm not sure Hackett had anything to do with it. Argo isn't exactly inspiring confidence in Ford's autonomy efforts either.

There's been a lot of big talk from both Ford and GM about the future of mobility the past few years, but while GM has played their cards perfectly and is doing exceptionally well, Ford's situation is a complete clusterfuck. I'm sure they mean well and understand the implications, but their execution has been sub-par.