Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee

There is a reason why even consensual relationships aren't allowed between workers in the same management chain at Intel. If you are in a relationship where you have power over the other person's livelihood, it can create a dynamic that can be coercive and predatory. I think it makes sense for them to mention the #MeToo movement in regards to this situation.

Secondly, BK is married and presumably this was a hidden affair, which adds another layer of complexity to this situation.

I'm hoping that we'll see innovations such as Mill Computing's CPU get to the market, and it should provide a dramatic improvement in efficiency / performance for a given die area.

And that's great. But that'll also be a one-time thing in a sense. After it has moved to the latest process node, it will be on the same trajectory as other architectures.

I think the parent is descriptive for many people, but that's a different issue than prescriptive. We can do much better:

> Is this insensitive? No, it's just sticking to patterns

IMHO, that's the cause of most discrimination. People aren't intentionally discriminatory, but not having experienced it themselves they suffer from the blinders of their own perspective (as humans do), are unaware of the consequences of their actions, and are doing the very human thing of downplaying the magnitude of others' problems. As Mel Brooks (IIRC) said, 'Tragedy is I stub my toe; comedy is you get eaten by a lion.'

That's why people talk about being 'woke' or becoming aware of their 'privilege'. They weren't intentionally insensitive before, but they didn't grasp what they hadn't experienced, and then one day the blinders come off.

> the modus operandi of our mind

The modus operendi of our minds can lead to all sorts of horrible things, from murder to war to theft. We can and do use reason in order to do better, including by learning the pattern of not making assumptions.

> it's a natural thing to do

It's natural to follow patterns, but the pattern isn't natural; it's just one arbitrary pattern we learn. We can learn other patterns, which is how we change and grow. Whole societies learn new patterns; democracy and universal human rights didn't exist until the 18th century (roughly speaking); for all of human history until maybe 50 years ago, women were 'naturally' though of as qualified only for raising babies and maybe some nurturing jobs. Now they fly fighter planes off aircraft carriers and are a majority of new lawyers (IT hasn't figured it out yet, apparently).

> It's very tiresome to watch yourself all day

If you think that's tiresome, imagine facing endless discrimination everywhere you go, from family, co-workers, employers, the person on the bus, the movie, the book, the Reddit thread, etc. Imagine facing the prospect of experiencing that for the rest of your life.

Anyway, we don't have to watch ourselves all day. Just learn something new, and pretty simple. I learned some new Vim techniques recently and now I don't have to watch myself all day, I just use them. I learned to say 'they' awhile ago, and it's now second nature - Vim was harder.

And this has nothing to do with the troubled 10nm process...

"Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues?"

Not just in the US but almost everywhere people tend to extremize moral reactions to the point their judgement in a situation is being impaired. Generally morals are used to drive people actions away from cold rational reasoning, and they also make strong arguments during war time or elections.

Unrelated, but strong example: take a toy gun and a sex toy then ask 1000 people if they would let their children play with one or the other or both. Pretty sure all of them would say no to the sex toy in disgust (which would be my reply as well, just to be clear), but most wouldn't mind letting their kids play with the toy gun. That would be a pretty normal reaction, so no problem here, apparently. But we can also describe a sex toy as a device to simulate the act of creating a life, and a toy gun as a device to simulate the act of taking away a life, so the question would be: why our morals which rightly prevent us from giving dildos to children don't prevent us from giving them toy guns as well?