6 ms·

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well. Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own righ

by Alupis 2y ago

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well. Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own right. Especially one with such a large entrenched bureaucracy as Intel has. Politics aside for a moment - we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE - the main difference is the fight is in full public view instead of behind closed doors. We can only imagine and speculate at the resistance Pat and others met while trying to change Intel's course. The infamous Oscar Wilde quote is very applicable: "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." - Ever large bureaucracy eventually exists largely to preserve itself. This is why it is so incredibly difficult to reduce the size of a bureaucracy. Every member is convinced the organization will fail tomorrow if they are let go today, and every member fights/resists any and all changes that threaten their bureaucracy and the status quo. Best of luck to Tan - I truly hope they succeed where many have failed at Intel. AMD needs a healthy Intel to drive motivation and competition. The world will be watching.

UltraSane 2y ago
"we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE" DOGE is just Musk bribing Trump into letting him settle scores and shut down agencies that are investigating him or that he doesn't like. Finding and eliminating "inefficiency" is just another one of Musk's myriad lies. I'm shocked at how many people still consider him to have any credibility at all.
- netsharc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pertymcpert 2y ago
    Why is that?
    - netsharc 2y ago
      I agree with grandparent commenter that it's shocking a lot of people (also here) think DOGE is a serious endeavour and not some slapstick bunch of people. The realization is that even in here, plenty of people's emotions cloud their ability to think.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        In my experience the highly intelligent are simply more able to find and generate rationalizations and justifications. It's similar to a science-believing schizophrenic, their brain finds physically possible but implausible ways to deceive them. This split demonstrates that intelligence and being grounded in reality are two orthogonal psychological phenomenon. Being grounded in reality is simply the ability to be open to being wrong. That's largely independent of being smart.
        heavymetalpoizn 2y ago
        [dead]
      - pengaru 2y ago
        My assumption is intelligent people generally have better things to do with their time than chat on HN....
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
la64710 2y ago
It’s a well written comment. Just because you disagree is no reason to downvote a well written comment.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  The comment (despite protests to the contrary) injected politics unnecessarily and a bit randomly (there’s no particular reason to believe Intel and the US government are very similar).
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > (there’s no particular reason to believe Intel and the US government are very similar) Large monopolies with limited market pressure to innovate?
    - gessha 2y ago
      How are the concepts of a state and a business the same?
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      Not really, no. Governments aren’t businesses. There isn’t much of a market for governance, people mostly become citizens by birth instead of by shopping around. Governments have natural “monopoly” over their territory (if there is competition for governing inside a territory, you have a civil war going on). Or, there is no monopoly, since you can “shop around” by moving to other countries. It depends on how you want to line up the analogy. (There’s room to line up the analogy in multiple ways because it is an analogy, and not a description of what countries actually are). Governments don’t innovate much on governance. They might enable innovation in other sectors. But the process of governance itself should generally be pretty slow-and-steady because the stakes are higher than an individual business. The goal of a government is not to create new and interesting governance-products and then sell those products, but to rule over an area in a way that doesn’t annoy the populace too much.
      - 2y ago
arunabha 2y ago
> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot of has been cut so far has been very favourable to the ultra rich. The most obvious ones being cutting the IRS enforcement budget and gutting the CFPB. It's possible to argue that all of that is good policy, but the facts make it very to claim that all of the destruction being wrought is going to make a meaningful dent in the government's spending.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much. Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of the software engineers. I'm not a heavy twitter user but I haven't noticed any difference in terms of reliability.
  - cinntaile 2y ago
    There is a massive difference though. It doesn't matter to anyone if Twitter works or not, while a lot of people depend on functioning government agencies.
    - rowanG077 2y ago
      And there are people who rely on it that aren't appropriately handled today. What I mean with that the current state is far from perfect too. Your argument is essentially change is risk. Which is true. But what is also true is that never changing will yield a much worse system in the long run.
      - 2y ago
zvr 2y ago
Bureaucracies are about processes. I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy is untouched -- it will just take longer without people and money.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, they say processes are not efficient. Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term. I disagree, of course it will meaningfully decrease the efficacy. The purpose of DOGE is to dismantle organizations which provide accountability for the private sector and the executive, including organizations which literally focus on optimizing processes. Of course, the same amount of stuff needs to get done. The workload doesn’t actually decrease because these jobs are complex in nature. There’s a lot of citizens to provide services to, or a lot of organizations to regulate. Those factors stay constant. The hope is that they’re unable to do their jobs in time, and we get more “asbestos in baby powder” type incidents as a result. Or shitty water (literally) or listeria, or watergates, or pick whatever bad thing you want when regulation goes down. I truly don’t understand how people make such bold statements as “letting people go changes nothing!” Really? What’s the mechanism for that? Process just… become more efficient? Do we even know how efficient the processes currently are? Because something tells me you have no idea. You’re assuming they’re inefficient because that’s easy to believe and requires no analysis.

by Alupis 2y ago

UltraSane 2y ago

"we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE" DOGE is just Musk bribing Trump into letting him settle scores and shut down agencies that are investigating him or that he doesn't like. Finding and eliminating "inefficiency" is just another one of Musk's myriad lies. I'm shocked at how many people still consider him to have any credibility at all.

netsharc 2y ago
[flagged]
- pertymcpert 2y ago
  Why is that?
  - netsharc 2y ago
    I agree with grandparent commenter that it's shocking a lot of people (also here) think DOGE is a serious endeavour and not some slapstick bunch of people. The realization is that even in here, plenty of people's emotions cloud their ability to think.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      In my experience the highly intelligent are simply more able to find and generate rationalizations and justifications. It's similar to a science-believing schizophrenic, their brain finds physically possible but implausible ways to deceive them. This split demonstrates that intelligence and being grounded in reality are two orthogonal psychological phenomenon. Being grounded in reality is simply the ability to be open to being wrong. That's largely independent of being smart.
      - heavymetalpoizn 2y ago
        [dead]
    - pengaru 2y ago
      My assumption is intelligent people generally have better things to do with their time than chat on HN....
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

la64710 2y ago

It’s a well written comment. Just because you disagree is no reason to downvote a well written comment.

bee_rider 2y ago
The comment (despite protests to the contrary) injected politics unnecessarily and a bit randomly (there’s no particular reason to believe Intel and the US government are very similar).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > (there’s no particular reason to believe Intel and the US government are very similar) Large monopolies with limited market pressure to innovate?
  - gessha 2y ago
    How are the concepts of a state and a business the same?
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Not really, no. Governments aren’t businesses. There isn’t much of a market for governance, people mostly become citizens by birth instead of by shopping around. Governments have natural “monopoly” over their territory (if there is competition for governing inside a territory, you have a civil war going on). Or, there is no monopoly, since you can “shop around” by moving to other countries. It depends on how you want to line up the analogy. (There’s room to line up the analogy in multiple ways because it is an analogy, and not a description of what countries actually are). Governments don’t innovate much on governance. They might enable innovation in other sectors. But the process of governance itself should generally be pretty slow-and-steady because the stakes are higher than an individual business. The goal of a government is not to create new and interesting governance-products and then sell those products, but to rule over an area in a way that doesn’t annoy the populace too much.
    - 2y ago

arunabha 2y ago

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot of has been cut so far has been very favourable to the ultra rich. The most obvious ones being cutting the IRS enforcement budget and gutting the CFPB. It's possible to argue that all of that is good policy, but the facts make it very to claim that all of the destruction being wrought is going to make a meaningful dent in the government's spending.

rowanG077 2y ago
Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much. Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of the software engineers. I'm not a heavy twitter user but I haven't noticed any difference in terms of reliability.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  There is a massive difference though. It doesn't matter to anyone if Twitter works or not, while a lot of people depend on functioning government agencies.
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    And there are people who rely on it that aren't appropriately handled today. What I mean with that the current state is far from perfect too. Your argument is essentially change is risk. Which is true. But what is also true is that never changing will yield a much worse system in the long run.
    - 2y ago

zvr 2y ago

Bureaucracies are about processes. I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy is untouched -- it will just take longer without people and money.

rowanG077 2y ago
Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, they say processes are not efficient. Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term.
- consteval 2y ago
  > Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term. I disagree, of course it will meaningfully decrease the efficacy. The purpose of DOGE is to dismantle organizations which provide accountability for the private sector and the executive, including organizations which literally focus on optimizing processes. Of course, the same amount of stuff needs to get done. The workload doesn’t actually decrease because these jobs are complex in nature. There’s a lot of citizens to provide services to, or a lot of organizations to regulate. Those factors stay constant. The hope is that they’re unable to do their jobs in time, and we get more “asbestos in baby powder” type incidents as a result. Or shitty water (literally) or listeria, or watergates, or pick whatever bad thing you want when regulation goes down. I truly don’t understand how people make such bold statements as “letting people go changes nothing!” Really? What’s the mechanism for that? Process just… become more efficient? Do we even know how efficient the processes currently are? Because something tells me you have no idea. You’re assuming they’re inefficient because that’s easy to believe and requires no analysis.