I think the title makes it very clear I'm strictly talking about the tech industry here, I can't say meritocracy is the best for all industries, let alone as a

I think the title makes it very clear I'm strictly talking about the tech industry here, I can't say meritocracy is the best for all industries, let alone as a form of governance. >In Young's original 1958 formulation I'm using the modern/current idea of meritocracy, I know it meant other things in the past but bringing that out is like racists talking about some event in the past to say "certain people" should be kept aside in case they do it again. >And yet, he would still be promoted under any modern notion of meritocracy, because he did have the critical skill of conning a bunch of folks into thinking he was actually worth following. Not a fan of jobs but I think that what worked for him because he arrived at a company that had no future and so not a lot of people wanted to challenge him to be the captain of a sinking ship. And his success was the result of consumers who as always care little about who makes their products, not meritocracy. Anyway, I hope you didn't write this from an apple product... >all it takes is a person to appropriate the accomplishments of one other person, and suddenly they have access to more political capital That is what we currently have, and its not a meritocracy