Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Real Story of Pixar

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#61

Post by cm2012 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #30

Wondered what "the whiteboard incident" was.... “One day at a board meeting, Jobs started berating Smith and other top Pixar executives for the delay in getting the circuit boards completed for the new version of the Pixar Image Computer. At the time, NeXT was also very late in completing its own computer boards, and Smith pointed that out: “Hey, you’re even later with your NeXT boards, so quit jumping on us.” Jobs w…

There is zero chance I would ever work with someone like Jobs. That shit is just unacceptable.

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#63

Post by monkeydreams »

CharlesW wrote: post #57
pseudosudoer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs, what a complete and utter asshole. Nothing says job security like telling your boss that their demands are "bullshit"

> I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs… If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-michelson/one-lesson-from-steve-job_b_1100331.html

> If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more.

So he was a bully who only targeted those people who wouldn't fight back?

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#64

Post by dahart »

b112 wrote: post #54
dahart wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were abusing their workers rights No they weren’t. The C-level staff of the parent companies named as defendants in the lawsuit were, and the parent companies are all still in business. The studios that closed were pawns, just like the employees.

Your logic doesn't seem sound here. One corp owning another isn't some arbitrary thing, they control that subcorp, are liable for its action, and so forth. The inverse is true. They're one thing. The separation is only legal, not moral.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Corps aren’t always (or even usually) liable for subcorps, and subcorps are never liable for the actions of parent corps. The whole reason there are two separate legal entities is to establish separate liabilities & finances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#65

Post by candlemas »

CharlesW wrote: post #57
pseudosudoer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs, what a complete and utter asshole. Nothing says job security like telling your boss that their demands are "bullshit"

> I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs… If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-michelson/one-lesson-from-steve-job_b_1100331.html

Did he ever blow up at Woz?

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#66

Post by nineteen999 »

mcast wrote: post #58
Arelius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, Pixar is notorious for using fairly low detail SubD surface control cages for almost everything.

Cool, that led me to a really good article on Pixar's open source project: https://graphics.pixar.com/opensubdiv/docs/subdivision_surfa...

Support for these were added into Blender via OpenSubdiv in Blender 2.8:

https://twitter.com/tonroosendaal/status/1025067227530362883...

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#67

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

yardie wrote: post #13
tablespoon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of work was he doing for them to try to sell to him? Same with the job interview? My understanding is that the oil and gas industry is pretty heavy needs for scientific computation and data visualization. That's how they discover new places to drill.

Oil and gas industries are data crunching monsters. While I thought it was impressive I got to work with I’m convinced if SV hadn’t happened in SV it would have happened in Dallas or Houston.

Some blips of that alternate timeline:

Schlumberger buying Fairchild, which had FLAIR (Fairchild Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research), then opening SPAR (Schlumberger Palo Alto Research) and moving FLAIR into that. Also long forgotten CPU-Architecture called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_architecture

later sold to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergraph

https://www.slb.com/who-we-are/our-history/1980s

Closing of SPAR, and moving parts of that to Austin.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-fi-4498-s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Martin_Tenenbaum

Some leftovers, via acquisition of Applicon and Bravo3!VLSI:

https://www.staticfreesoft.com/electricHistory.html

Steven M. Rubin, Computer Aids for VLSI Design https://www.rulabinsky.com/cavd/

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#68

Post by b112 »

dahart wrote: post #64
b112 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic doesn't seem sound here. One corp owning another isn't some arbitrary thing, they control that subcorp, are liable for its action, and so forth. The inverse is true. They're one thing. The separation is only legal, not moral.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Corps aren’t always (or even usually) liable for subcorps, and subcorps are never liable for the actions of parent corps. The whole reason there are two separate legal entities is to establish separate liabilities & finances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary

Yes, using the term liable was a mistake. I meant "responsible".

I also should have put my last sentence in its own paragraph.

I stand by this, and consider...

You are a CFO of a subsidiary. You have certain legal requirements. Only certain people may speak for your org, be it CxO level, or the board.

If you discover a board member speaking as if it has CxO level authority, or worse, some non-board, or CxO actor running around, claiming to represent your company on financial matters, you must seek and act on that malfeasance. You cannot simply allow someone, with your knowledge, to speak for your corp, without approval.

The board / directors appoint top execs, giving them executive power. No one else may claim it.

So, someone running around, negotiating salary deals, speaking for a subcorp? Very shady, hard to believe it would not get back to the board or that the board or executive branch did not know.

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#69

Post by goto11 »

CharlesW wrote: post #57
pseudosudoer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs, what a complete and utter asshole. Nothing says job security like telling your boss that their demands are "bullshit"

> I'm glad someone stood up to Jobs… If you worked with Steve, you were going to be challenged. If you cowered, gods help you. But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be fine, in the end he'd respect you more. www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-michelson/one-lesson-from-steve-job_b_1100331.html

So you are saying Smith didn't know what he was talking about?

Re: The Real Story of Pixar

#70

Post by dahart »

b112 wrote: post #68
dahart wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Corps aren’t always (or even usually) liable for subcorps, and subcorps are never liable for the actions of parent corps. The whole reason there are two separate legal entities is to establish separate liabilities & finances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary

Yes, using the term liable was a mistake. I meant "responsible". I also should have put my last sentence in its own paragraph. I stand by this, and consider... You are a CFO of a subsidiary. You have certain legal requirements. Only certain people may speak for your org, be it CxO level, or the board. If you discover a board member speaking as if it has CxO level authority, or worse, some non-board, or CxO actor runn…

What value are you hoping to contribute to this discussion? You are speaking in generalities and platitudes and making so many assumptions it’s hard to respond. Your description of the corporate subsidiary relationship is still incorrect.

This isn’t logic, it’s history. If you’re interested in commenting on it, why not read something about the actual lawsuit? In this case, specific people were caught making certain agreements that are against the law. The executives did know, because they were the ones making the agreement, and they were caught. People directly involved included Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple) and Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google).

Post reply on HN