121–128 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not growing is completely unacceptable; it is anathema Succinctly put and so very both unfortunate and accurate. The only other thing I can think of that grows endlessly is cancer. There’s an analogy in there if you squint hard enough.
Cancer does not grow endlessly.
> If you want to see the cleanest expression of this, the place to look is LinkedIn. It's funny how easily you can convince people that social media is not real life. Those influencers posting content 24/7 are a minority of people putting on a show, not a reflection of the real world. It's such an obvious feature of social media. But when the topic changes to LinkedIn they completely forget that. They act like the Li…
I increasingly feel the same about the comment quality of HN in recent years. There are three topics that inevitably get injected into every discussion: AI, politics, and nostalgia. The thing is, I don't understand the goal. This isn't reddit. Few people on here are that broke, uneducated, or impressionable. This site is also deliberately designed to not reward any interaction.
In "Failure Is Not an Option", Gene Kranz, who ran Apollo Mission Control in the 1960s, brings up tolerance for bullshit. Someone tried to bullshit him about something. He put his arm around them and walked them out of mission control. They were never in that room again. We need more leaders like that.
They need to get int positions of leadership first. In a typical corpo office, those people are not rewarded, they are pushed out.
That set the tone for the rest of the war. Bad leaders were routinely demoted or retired by a formal process for identifying losers. Not for policy reasons. For not being good at combat leadership. For most of the 1950s, at least, the US military continued that tradition. Much of the staff of Apollo came from that environment.
[1] https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gen-george-c-mar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it?
Up until death, yes.
Those that can Do, those that can't Bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The responsible alternative to not going is to return capital to your share holders who can then do the goose hunting themselves, and management should in invest their personal stock into other companies. For very human reasons, they thing they have a better chance of finding the goose themselves.
Does R&D have to have a guaranteed ROI in your view or do allow for speculative research that may not pan out?
I have a feeling this goes waaaay back, but was covered by claims of authority, in a time where merit and authority were intertwined. My pet peeve is that management is a transferable skill that supersedes industry expertise. It is such a convenient lie that offers MBAs, management consultants, burned out business executives and “retired” generals alike a new career without actually knowing anything about what they a…