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

Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#31

Post by mirceal »

gwbas1c wrote: post #18

I worked at Intel 2005-2007. I read the article hoping to see an independent description of the culture I observed. I hoped to see someone use words to explain something that I can't explain. The thing about Intel's culture that I observed was that it wasn't toxic at all. The worst thing that I could say about it was that it was boring, which was why I left so quickly. If anything was "toxic," it could be that some m…

At a big corporation, like Intel, we cannot really talk about just one culture. I would say that your experience can vary quite a lot based on the team you’re in and to a certain degree the org you’re in.

Various people assign the ‘toxic’ label to various things. What may be ‘meh’ for one person could be ‘toxic’ to another.

Also: Mandatory HR is not your friend reminder. HR is there and it’s trained to protect the corporation.

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#32

Post by lend000 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #18

I worked at Intel 2005-2007. I read the article hoping to see an independent description of the culture I observed. I hoped to see someone use words to explain something that I can't explain. The thing about Intel's culture that I observed was that it wasn't toxic at all. The worst thing that I could say about it was that it was boring, which was why I left so quickly. If anything was "toxic," it could be that some m…

Agree with this, Intel is as boring as big bureaucratic government contractors, much to my dismay (and quite different from 90's software giants, which seem to move at a faster pace). Their processing and manufacturing lead can only keep them going for so long until they find some visionary leadership that can revitalize the company from the bottom up.

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#33

Post by ihsw2 »

danmg wrote: post #27
EpicEng wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's hardly an established term Yet you said... >You can't prescribe how language is used. Toxic culture now means this. So apparently you can.

For this author it does mean this. Feel free to use this phrase however you want though.

That's not how language works. Words and terms have meaning, you can't just make stuff up and say "languages evolve/everything is subjective/use whatever phrase you want whenever you want."

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#35

Post by danmg »

ihsw2 wrote: post #33
danmg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this author it does mean this. Feel free to use this phrase however you want though.

That's not how language works. Words and terms have meaning, you can't just make stuff up and say "languages evolve/everything is subjective/use whatever phrase you want whenever you want."

When it's a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning, yes you can.

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

danmg wrote: post #35
ihsw2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how language works. Words and terms have meaning, you can't just make stuff up and say "languages evolve/everything is subjective/use whatever phrase you want whenever you want."

When it's a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning, yes you can.

> a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning

All words and phrases are made up. None of them have an “inherent concrete meaning”. Commonly-accepted deifnitions today may have been entirely foreign a few decades ago.

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#37

Post by kazinator »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
danmg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning, yes you can.

> a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning All words and phrases are made up. None of them have an “inherent concrete meaning”. Commonly-accepted deifnitions today may have been entirely foreign a few decades ago.

Words and phrases can have a de facto inherent meaning when they are in a language shared by the speaker and listener (including a shared knowledge domain).

When in spite of this shared language/domain situation, a phrase is gobbledygook, it is fair to say it has "no inherent concrete meaning".

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#38

Post by Symmetry »

tlb wrote: post #7

The term 'toxic culture' is mostly used to describe widespread harassment and bullying. 'Ossified' or 'stagnant' are more apt terms for a company that can't seem to seize new opportunities. The thing about margins is that it's a lot more fun to work in a division with high margins. Low margin businesses are grim, because every cost matters. When you can charge $5000 for the latest Xeon, you can pay high salaries and…

There are certainly some people[1] alleging that Intel has what most would agree is a toxic culture, but yeah this article really didn't illustrate that.

[1]https://semiaccurate.com/2018/06/29/intels-firing-of-ceo-bri...

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#39

Post by danmg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
danmg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning, yes you can.

> a phrase with no inherent concrete meaning All words and phrases are made up. None of them have an “inherent concrete meaning”. Commonly-accepted deifnitions today may have been entirely foreign a few decades ago.

Yes, so the author is free to talk about 'toxic culture' as inflexible management and that makes sense to me.

Re: Who wants to be Intel’s new CEO?

#40

Post by lmm »

danmg wrote: post #27
EpicEng wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's hardly an established term Yet you said... >You can't prescribe how language is used. Toxic culture now means this. So apparently you can.

For this author it does mean this. Feel free to use this phrase however you want though.

Communication is a two-way street. A word becomes meaningful when the recipient is able to understand the author through it; if there is no such consensus, then the word can't be said to mean anything.
Post reply on HN