61–70 of 94 posts
Currently working at an older style defense company and this fits but I think momentum is a better reference. There are no financial incentives to risk on new process. Gatekeepers, siloing, bureaucracy, and risk aversion act to stop and slow. I have worked startups and early stage companies prior and used that experience to force developmental projects and gotten prototypes and patents through the resistance. My cowo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got downvoted for speaking the truth, or maybe because "Western culture" is such a vague term, but it works the way I read it.
Or perhaps just because it's not accurate. Reducing any complex system down to a trivial projection is very unlikely to explain anything well.
The only way to reach light speed is to become light itself. As an object with mass accelerates closer to the speed of light, its relativistic mass effectively increases, requiring exponentially more energy for further acceleration. To reach exactly the speed of light, an infinite amount of energy would be needed, which is physically impossible. The only way to actually reach the full potential of light speed is to c…
From what I've seen, LLMs just accelerate or compound this whole process as well. Everyone has the same group think, it bleeds into the way the LLM generates code and ultimately it just rots teams.
I do consulting, I see lots of teams using LLM's to "speed run to a legacy code base". Much of what goes on in corporate America is not blindness its accretion. They simply dont have the culture to evolve. The devotion to next quarters numbers and share holder value play a massive part in this.
I think this sums up the problems pointed out by the article, as well as most organizational problems in general.
When I was younger, I thought management was basically useless, do-nothing mucky mucks, who did more harm than good. This can still be true, but I've changed my opinion. Hiring and firing is hard. Creating a strong and healthy culture is hard. Defining success, and steering the ship to it is hard.
I think as long as money is the measurement of success, particularly from a short-term viewpoint, nothing can change. Public companies basically cannot evolve their form, because boards and shareholders will rarely agree to leave money on the table for an opaque long view that prioritizes culture over profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is when practices are chosen, that improve things on one dimension, and harm things on another, without recognition of the long-term tradeoff being made. Simply recognizing the tradeoff exists, is likely to result in wiser decisions with lower tradeoff costs, and greater opportunity expansion.
who is to recognize the tradeoff? communicate it to who? A giant business is built on stability. i dont think its a bad thing that they do not pivot except in circumstances where they have no other choice. The business is a brand and that brand is a certain way of doing things and if/when that way of doing things falls out of favor then the business should fail. the owners made enough to retire by then, as well as ma…
To not recognize the decisions, weigh their tradeoffs and their implications, is to make the decisions blindly.
Creativity has to be actively protected where it is wanted or impactful. Or in large companies, it will get crushed as power to make choices flows elsewhere.