2 ms·
Using "disrupt" like this has not aged well, and people who still seek to "disrupt" a market sound like they're reacting to trends 10 years out of date. After e
by philipov 2y ago
Using "disrupt" like this has not aged well, and people who still seek to "disrupt" a market sound like they're reacting to trends 10 years out of date. After everyone else realized that disruption is bad, these guys are jumping on a bandwagon that's already over. That's the impression the article conveys by using such a charged word.
- markerz 2y agoWhile “disrupt” is definitely a charged word, I think it’s fair to use in this case. Chip making is monopolistic and kind of stagnant. The existing power resting on a few (like two) enormously valued companies and the difficulty to enter the market makes me root for the underdogs here. It’s a situation that seems appropriate to disrupt. There’s also the concept of word chasing, where one label is deemed inappropriate to use so everyone switches to a different one which also quickly falls out of favor for the same charged reason. Rather than addressing WHY something is charged, it’s far easier and very pointless to just avoid the word entirely, aside from short term good feelings.
- FredPret 2y agoIs it stagnant, or near-optimal? We’ve seen eye-watering improvements in chipmaking for decades now. Could be that it is close to perfect at this point and we need new science to make further improvements.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoWhat's the acceptable new lingo? "Canon plans to make chipmaking seamless"?