3 ms·

Not really, Tesla is very much like Apple in the sense that they expect their employees to be 100% compliant and not "overshare", with overbearing corporate sec

by posguy 9y ago

Not really, Tesla is very much like Apple in the sense that they expect their employees to be 100% compliant and not "overshare", with overbearing corporate security that'll handle you if you step out of line one iota. I don't see why Tesla would change, apparently working conditions are terrible at their factories: http://www.thedailybeast.com/workers-say-tesla-is-trying-to-scare-them-out-of-a-union http://www.thedailybeast.com/workers-say-tesla-is-trying-to-... On a vaguely related tangent, the sheer duplication of work I saw at Apple was impressive, their corporate culture has secrecy so ingrained that large chunks of the company are duplicating eachother's work needlessly, out of fear of communicating effectively.

jacobush 9y ago
Funny you should say that about Apple. I think about the saying about software reflecting the organization in structure. Apples effectively static binaries are a bit the same thing. (The ".app" folders.) They contain everything needed to run the application, no libraries are shared between apps. Massive waste, but at the same time, the system is more robust this way. Apps can be upgraded and redone without caring about potential sharing and conflicts with other applications. This has benefits. I think it's the same with organisations. The secrecy and keeping to yourself, also means you are free to do your thing and there is less need to communicate, "build a shared view" and so on.
- ghaff 9y ago
  That's the general direction that things are headed more broadly with containers. It's sort of amusing how this came about because containers are really an outgrowth of OS virtualization work while app virtualization never really went anywhere in a mainstream way--but os virt (containers) has really developed into a way of encapsulating apps. Storage is cheap. It's much more efficient overall to bundle apps with essentially everything they need to run--modulo the kernel although there's some debate about that last point.

by posguy 9y ago

jacobush 9y ago

Funny you should say that about Apple. I think about the saying about software reflecting the organization in structure. Apples effectively static binaries are a bit the same thing. (The ".app" folders.) They contain everything needed to run the application, no libraries are shared between apps. Massive waste, but at the same time, the system is more robust this way. Apps can be upgraded and redone without caring about potential sharing and conflicts with other applications. This has benefits. I think it's the same with organisations. The secrecy and keeping to yourself, also means you are free to do your thing and there is less need to communicate, "build a shared view" and so on.

ghaff 9y ago
That's the general direction that things are headed more broadly with containers. It's sort of amusing how this came about because containers are really an outgrowth of OS virtualization work while app virtualization never really went anywhere in a mainstream way--but os virt (containers) has really developed into a way of encapsulating apps. Storage is cheap. It's much more efficient overall to bundle apps with essentially everything they need to run--modulo the kernel although there's some debate about that last point.