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

Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 154 posts

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#111

Post by rowanG077 »

cinntaile wrote: post #109
rowanG077 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much. Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of th…

There is a massive difference though. It doesn't matter to anyone if Twitter works or not, while a lot of people depend on functioning government agencies.

And there are people who rely on it that aren't appropriately handled today. What I mean with that the current state is far from perfect too.

Your argument is essentially change is risk. Which is true. But what is also true is that never changing will yield a much worse system in the long run.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#112

Post by consteval »

rowanG077 wrote: post #107
zvr wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracies are about processes . I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy i…

Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, the…

> Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term.

I disagree, of course it will meaningfully decrease the efficacy. The purpose of DOGE is to dismantle organizations which provide accountability for the private sector and the executive, including organizations which literally focus on optimizing processes.

Of course, the same amount of stuff needs to get done. The workload doesn’t actually decrease because these jobs are complex in nature. There’s a lot of citizens to provide services to, or a lot of organizations to regulate. Those factors stay constant. The hope is that they’re unable to do their jobs in time, and we get more “asbestos in baby powder” type incidents as a result. Or shitty water (literally) or listeria, or watergates, or pick whatever bad thing you want when regulation goes down.

I truly don’t understand how people make such bold statements as “letting people go changes nothing!” Really? What’s the mechanism for that? Process just… become more efficient? Do we even know how efficient the processes currently are? Because something tells me you have no idea. You’re assuming they’re inefficient because that’s easy to believe and requires no analysis.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#113

Post by cinntaile »

rowanG077 wrote: post #111
cinntaile wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a massive difference though. It doesn't matter to anyone if Twitter works or not, while a lot of people depend on functioning government agencies.

And there are people who rely on it that aren't appropriately handled today. What I mean with that the current state is far from perfect too. Your argument is essentially change is risk. Which is true. But what is also true is that never changing will yield a much worse system in the long run.

No, my argument is you can't compare the two.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#114

Post by chuankl »

rowanG077 wrote: post #108
arunabha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot…

Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much. Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of th…

> Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much.

A tenth of one percent. So not 10%, but 0.1%.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#115

Post by specialist »

arunabha wrote: post #95
Alupis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well. Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own right. Especially one with such a large entrenched bureaucracy as Intel has. Politics aside for a moment - we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE - the main difference is the fight is in full public view instead o…

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot…

> So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget.

IIRC, less even than the govt's subsidies to Musk's enterprises.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#116

Post by specialist »

rowanG077 wrote: post #108
arunabha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot…

Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much. Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of th…

Have you read the misc "why can't America build things any more" criticisms? Like why our mega projects are super expensive, late, and over budget.

The recurring punchline is: Lack of administrative capacity.

The trials and tribulations of California's ill fated high speed rail is such a case study. Decades of outsourcings and privatization eliminated CA's ability to manage the effort.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#117

Post by specialist »

rowanG077 wrote: post #107
zvr wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracies are about processes . I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy i…

Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, the…

What's DOGE's plan for process improvement? Is there a policy and legislative framework in the works?

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#118

Post by rowanG077 »

cinntaile wrote: post #113
rowanG077 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there are people who rely on it that aren't appropriately handled today. What I mean with that the current state is far from perfect too. Your argument is essentially change is risk. Which is true. But what is also true is that never changing will yield a much worse system in the long run.

No, my argument is you can't compare the two.

Just because one is something people rely upon and the other isn't is not really a reason they are incomparable. Just because the end goal is different doesn't suddenly mean nothing applies.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#119

Post by rowanG077 »

consteval wrote: post #112
rowanG077 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, the…

> Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term. I disagree, of course it will meaningfully decrease the efficacy. The purpose of DOGE is to dismantle organizations which provide accountability for the private sector and the executive, including organizations which literally focus on optimizing processes. Of course, the same amount of stuff needs to get done. T…

> The purpose of DOGE is to dismantle organizations which provide accountability for the private sector and the executive, including organizations which literally focus on optimizing processes.

If you working from a bad faith PoV like this it really makes no sense to talk about it.

The mechanism is pretty obvious to me. The pareto principle is well studied.

Like a government agency has no self cleaning mechanism like a cooperation has. As far as I understand it. DOGE is trying to be that.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#120

Post by BeetleB »

t1234s wrote: post #65

Does Intel have any path to its stock price going 10x?

Not a chance. Fabs are an expensive business. The financials of a company like Intel can never compete with that of a fables company.

Even when Intel was having record revenues year after year its stock price barely moved.

Post reply on HN