4 ms·

You put it so well, having worked in both large and small companies - I can attest to this theory. An exception might be SpaceX where you have a strong dictator

You put it so well, having worked in both large and small companies - I can attest to this theory. An exception might be SpaceX where you have a strong dictator at the top and any annoyances of tribal war get direct authoritarian spanking.

PakG1 6y ago
Is SpaceX already that big to be in the class of overweight titans like Intel?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  You could imagine the division responsible for mobile chip design to be of similar size to a mid-sized company like SpaceX. The optics are the same. You're right Intel is massive - the logistics department at Intel doesn't have any friction with the teams tasked with mobile chip design.
- manquer 6y ago
  perhaps not in absolute terms, however In the launch industry they are almost as massive if not bigger . spacex also employees 8,000+ people. That is a scale large enough for it to have similar problems of intel size companies.
paganel 6y ago
> An exception might be SpaceX where you have a strong dictator at the top I think a similar thing is happening at Amazon (the strong dictator stuff, I mean), and it's my hunch that Google has started following Intel's trajectory, they just haven't realised it just yet.
- haramboy 6y ago
  Similarly in US politics. And before we get emotional, how is it different from those examples?
  - fsloth 6y ago
    A company and a sovereign state are completely different things. Both have politics since they are structures made of humans. But they are completely different. A company is a legal entity functioning within the framework of the legislation of a state, to start with.
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      Only the government can use force openly on you with complete impunity.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      A company and a sovereign state are completely different things. It depends on the level you look at. For example the political skills of a manager to advance themselves at the expense of the organisation and their subordinates is identical whether at Raytheon or the DoD (to use an American example).
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    All countries where there is a class of people who go into politics as their only career. The UK is riddled with them.
    - rleigh 6y ago
      In some ways, this is the result of equality through having paid salaries for politicians. While the previous arrangement of having to be independently wealthy excluded most people from getting into politics, it did mean that it wasn't a career choice. It was something you did after you gained wealth and experience, at the end of a career in an actual industry and most likely running a business or being a senior manager, or you were wealthy to begin with. While the arrangement was not perfect by any means, it did mean that the politicians of that era were men of substance with a wealth of knowledge tempered by real-world experience. Politicians who go into it as a career straight from university lack any serious real-world experience outside politics, and I'm afraid to say they aren't up for the job. Their heads are full of political ideals but they mean little to the rest of us who just want competence and level-headed decision making. I think there's a relatively straightforward and fair solution to the problem, and that is to require a certain amount of experience before being permitted to stand as a political candidate. You could do this by having a minimum age limit (e.g. 35), or by having been employed or being an employer for a certain number of years e.g. 15. This would ensure that the people representing us have gained a little understanding and experience of the world we live in and the real needs of the people they serve. Right now, I feel politicians of all stripes are almost completely divorced from the rest of us, and the consequences of their actions. I do feel it is somewhat foolish that any job in the real world, from management through to the lowliest worker requires years of experience, multiple qualifications and certifications, training and assessment. But politicians require no independent assessment of their capabilities. The ballot box is not a high enough bar when all the candidates are of low quality.
- osipov 6y ago
  The more perceptive ones at Google have realized that and quit in mass over the past few years. Since Sundar and the rest of the McKinsey gang took over, it has been just death to Google by a thousand cuts.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Sundar's complete destruction of Google's massive goodwill has been spectacular. And sad.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      I think he's an improvement over Eric "maybe-don't-do-it-if-you-want-to-keep-it-private" Schmidt
      - JAlexoid 6y ago
        Em... Eric had a disaster PR moment, while Sundar is just turning Google into another IBM.
ckemere 6y ago
Despite their size, I think they're still in the startup phase where they have a large number of starry-eyed (pun intended) folks coming in because of the mission. That really is Musk's secret - you can get a lot done churning through people.

PakG1 6y ago

Is SpaceX already that big to be in the class of overweight titans like Intel?

systemvoltage 6y ago
You could imagine the division responsible for mobile chip design to be of similar size to a mid-sized company like SpaceX. The optics are the same. You're right Intel is massive - the logistics department at Intel doesn't have any friction with the teams tasked with mobile chip design.
manquer 6y ago
perhaps not in absolute terms, however In the launch industry they are almost as massive if not bigger . spacex also employees 8,000+ people. That is a scale large enough for it to have similar problems of intel size companies.

paganel 6y ago

> An exception might be SpaceX where you have a strong dictator at the top I think a similar thing is happening at Amazon (the strong dictator stuff, I mean), and it's my hunch that Google has started following Intel's trajectory, they just haven't realised it just yet.

haramboy 6y ago
Similarly in US politics. And before we get emotional, how is it different from those examples?
- fsloth 6y ago
  A company and a sovereign state are completely different things. Both have politics since they are structures made of humans. But they are completely different. A company is a legal entity functioning within the framework of the legislation of a state, to start with.
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    Only the government can use force openly on you with complete impunity.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    A company and a sovereign state are completely different things. It depends on the level you look at. For example the political skills of a manager to advance themselves at the expense of the organisation and their subordinates is identical whether at Raytheon or the DoD (to use an American example).
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  All countries where there is a class of people who go into politics as their only career. The UK is riddled with them.
  - rleigh 6y ago
    In some ways, this is the result of equality through having paid salaries for politicians. While the previous arrangement of having to be independently wealthy excluded most people from getting into politics, it did mean that it wasn't a career choice. It was something you did after you gained wealth and experience, at the end of a career in an actual industry and most likely running a business or being a senior manager, or you were wealthy to begin with. While the arrangement was not perfect by any means, it did mean that the politicians of that era were men of substance with a wealth of knowledge tempered by real-world experience. Politicians who go into it as a career straight from university lack any serious real-world experience outside politics, and I'm afraid to say they aren't up for the job. Their heads are full of political ideals but they mean little to the rest of us who just want competence and level-headed decision making. I think there's a relatively straightforward and fair solution to the problem, and that is to require a certain amount of experience before being permitted to stand as a political candidate. You could do this by having a minimum age limit (e.g. 35), or by having been employed or being an employer for a certain number of years e.g. 15. This would ensure that the people representing us have gained a little understanding and experience of the world we live in and the real needs of the people they serve. Right now, I feel politicians of all stripes are almost completely divorced from the rest of us, and the consequences of their actions. I do feel it is somewhat foolish that any job in the real world, from management through to the lowliest worker requires years of experience, multiple qualifications and certifications, training and assessment. But politicians require no independent assessment of their capabilities. The ballot box is not a high enough bar when all the candidates are of low quality.
osipov 6y ago
The more perceptive ones at Google have realized that and quit in mass over the past few years. Since Sundar and the rest of the McKinsey gang took over, it has been just death to Google by a thousand cuts.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Sundar's complete destruction of Google's massive goodwill has been spectacular. And sad.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    I think he's an improvement over Eric "maybe-don't-do-it-if-you-want-to-keep-it-private" Schmidt
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      Em... Eric had a disaster PR moment, while Sundar is just turning Google into another IBM.

ckemere 6y ago

Despite their size, I think they're still in the startup phase where they have a large number of starry-eyed (pun intended) folks coming in because of the mission. That really is Musk's secret - you can get a lot done churning through people.