6 ms·

> 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),

> 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.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      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. Yes exactly. I don't hold with the notion that the head of the NHS has to have been a doctor or the head of the MoD has to have been a soldier - there is value in being about to look at thing objectively with an outsider's perspective. But at the same time, I do absolutely believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be someone, from any industry, who has employed people and had to make payroll on payday come hell or high water. It would also benefit everyone if some life experience was required before becoming a teacher. The ballot box is not a high enough bar when all the candidates are of low quality. Agreed again, voting now is about holding your nose and choosing the least-worst. I want "none of the above" on the ballot paper and if it wins, the real candidates are banned from politics for life. Repeat until some decent candidates show up. But none of our incumbent politicians would ever pass that law for obvious reasons.
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.

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.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    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. Yes exactly. I don't hold with the notion that the head of the NHS has to have been a doctor or the head of the MoD has to have been a soldier - there is value in being about to look at thing objectively with an outsider's perspective. But at the same time, I do absolutely believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be someone, from any industry, who has employed people and had to make payroll on payday come hell or high water. It would also benefit everyone if some life experience was required before becoming a teacher. The ballot box is not a high enough bar when all the candidates are of low quality. Agreed again, voting now is about holding your nose and choosing the least-worst. I want "none of the above" on the ballot paper and if it wins, the real candidates are banned from politics for life. Repeat until some decent candidates show up. But none of our incumbent politicians would ever pass that law for obvious reasons.

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.