News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by systemvoltage on Saturday November 14, 2020 @12:39PM (#25093898)
You put it so well, having worked in both large and small companies - I can attest to this theory. An exception might be SpaceX where you have a strong dictator at the top and any annoyances of tribal war get direct authoritarian spanking.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by paganel on Saturday November 14, 2020 @01:30PM (#25094370)
> An exception might be SpaceX where you have a strong dictator at the top

I think a similar thing is happening at Amazon (the strong dictator stuff, I mean), and it's my hunch that Google has started following Intel's trajectory, they just haven't realised it just yet.

Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by osipov on Saturday November 14, 2020 @01:43PM (#25094488)
The more perceptive ones at Google have realized that and quit in mass over the past few years. Since Sundar and the rest of the McKinsey gang took over, it has been just death to Google by a thousand cuts.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by bosswipe on Saturday November 14, 2020 @04:05PM (#25095606)
Sundar's complete destruction of Google's massive goodwill has been spectacular. And sad.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by sangnoir on Saturday November 14, 2020 @06:11PM (#25096563)
I think he's an improvement over Eric "maybe-don't-do-it-if-you-want-to-keep-it-private" Schmidt
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by JAlexoid on Sunday November 15, 2020 @01:44AM (#25098882)
Em... Eric had a disaster PR moment, while Sundar is just turning Google into another IBM.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by haramboy on Saturday November 14, 2020 @01:37PM (#25094442)
Similarly in US politics. And before we get emotional, how is it different from those examples?
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by goatinaboat on Saturday November 14, 2020 @03:22PM (#25095315)
All countries where there is a class of people who go into politics as their only career. The UK is riddled with them.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by rleigh on Sunday November 15, 2020 @05:23AM (#25099918)
In some ways, this is the result of equality through having paid salaries for politicians. While the previous arrangement of having to be independently wealthy excluded most people from getting into politics, it did mean that it wasn't a career choice. It was something you did after you gained wealth and experience, at the end of a career in an actual industry and most likely running a business or being a senior manager, or you were wealthy to begin with. While the arrangement was not perfect by any means, it did mean that the politicians of that era were men of substance with a wealth of knowledge tempered by real-world experience. Politicians who go into it as a career straight from university lack any serious real-world experience outside politics, and I'm afraid to say they aren't up for the job. Their heads are full of political ideals but they mean little to the rest of us who just want competence and level-headed decision making.

I think there's a relatively straightforward and fair solution to the problem, and that is to require a certain amount of experience before being permitted to stand as a political candidate. You could do this by having a minimum age limit (e.g. 35), or by having been employed or being an employer for a certain number of years e.g. 15. This would ensure that the people representing us have gained a little understanding and experience of the world we live in and the real needs of the people they serve. Right now, I feel politicians of all stripes are almost completely divorced from the rest of us, and the consequences of their actions.

I do feel it is somewhat foolish that any job in the real world, from management through to the lowliest worker requires years of experience, multiple qualifications and certifications, training and assessment. But politicians require no independent assessment of their capabilities. The ballot box is not a high enough bar when all the candidates are of low quality.

Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by goatinaboat on Sunday November 15, 2020 @05:48AM (#25100079)
While the arrangement was not perfect by any means, it did mean that the politicians of that era were men of substance with a wealth of knowledge tempered by real-world experience.

Yes exactly. I don't hold with the notion that the head of the NHS has to have been a doctor or the head of the MoD has to have been a soldier - there is value in being about to look at thing objectively with an outsider's perspective. But at the same time, I do absolutely believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be someone, from any industry, who has employed people and had to make payroll on payday come hell or high water.

It would also benefit everyone if some life experience was required before becoming a teacher.

The ballot box is not a high enough bar when all the candidates are of low quality.

Agreed again, voting now is about holding your nose and choosing the least-worst. I want "none of the above" on the ballot paper and if it wins, the real candidates are banned from politics for life. Repeat until some decent candidates show up. But none of our incumbent politicians would ever pass that law for obvious reasons.

Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by rleigh on Sunday November 15, 2020 @06:20AM (#25100268)
Absolutely agreed on all counts.

The point about teachers is also something I think is quite neglected today. A teacher with real-world experience of their subject is vastly better than someone who has known nothing of the world outside education. And that's of value far beyond the subject matter: they can provide career guidance and real-world perspectives of all kinds that less experienced teachers simply can't provide. Certainly some of the best teachers I had were those who had done real work.

Regarding the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I absolutely agree. But I think it should go further. I think all MPs should have direct experience of running a business and having to make payroll. Too many of them lack understanding of the reality of what a business is, and how the economy runs. It would temper some of the most extreme and dangerous actions, from taxation to social welfare spending. Too many think businesses are "rich" and can be taxed with impunity to pay for things of dubious benefit. It's easy to be profligate with other people's money if it seems like it's there for the taking. Experience might make them think about how to grow the economy to benefit us all, and reduce unnecessary expenditure. They might also think more carefully about supporting small businesses while ensuring large multinationals also pay their dues. I personally paid more corporation tax than several multinationals, despite earning less than the living wage.

For the first time, I set up and ran my own small consulting business for the past two years after being made redundant. (I'm also in the UK.) It was a small-time business with only one client for a couple of small contracts, and I since got a new permanent position. But the experience of having to do all the company registration, contract negotiation, invoicing, bookkeeping, dealing with accountants, paying corporation tax, and finally getting it all wound up was an invaluable experience which will likely be of great benefit in better understanding the businesses I work for. It gave me a proper appreciation of the realities of running a business, including all of the responsibilities you have to shoulder. I think every elected politician should have this experience. Every self-employed person in the country has a better understanding of the practical reality of economics and taxation than most of our politicians. And I think all politicians should be aware of the reality of what the rest of the country has to bear in response to the decisions they make.

Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by fsloth on Saturday November 14, 2020 @02:11PM (#25094746)
A company and a sovereign state are completely different things.

Both have politics since they are structures made of humans.

But they are completely different.

A company is a legal entity functioning within the framework of the legislation of a state, to start with.

Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by goatinaboat on Sunday November 15, 2020 @03:15AM (#25099274)
A company and a sovereign state are completely different things.

It depends on the level you look at. For example the political skills of a manager to advance themselves at the expense of the organisation and their subordinates is identical whether at Raytheon or the DoD (to use an American example).

Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by JAlexoid on Sunday November 15, 2020 @01:45AM (#25098889)
Only the government can use force openly on you with complete impunity.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by ckemere on Saturday November 14, 2020 @05:04PM (#25096071)
Despite their size, I think they're still in the startup phase where they have a large number of starry-eyed (pun intended) folks coming in because of the mission. That really is Musk's secret - you can get a lot done churning through people.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by PakG1 on Saturday November 14, 2020 @01:13PM (#25094226)
Is SpaceX already that big to be in the class of overweight titans like Intel?
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by systemvoltage on Saturday November 14, 2020 @01:24PM (#25094318)
You could imagine the division responsible for mobile chip design to be of similar size to a mid-sized company like SpaceX. The optics are the same. You're right Intel is massive - the logistics department at Intel doesn't have any friction with the teams tasked with mobile chip design.
Re:Intel's disruption is now complete by manquer on Saturday November 14, 2020 @01:55PM (#25094605)
perhaps not in absolute terms, however In the launch industry they are almost as massive if not bigger . spacex also employees 8,000+ people. That is a scale large enough for it to have similar problems of intel size companies.