5 ms·

20 Freescale Semiconductor Employees on Missing Flight MH370

44 points by greenburger 13y ago

dm2 13y ago
That's awful for the people who are dead, their families, and the company. This brings up an important lesson about minimizing risk that many businesses should consider. Many companies forbid the upper management from traveling together in case of a disaster such as this. Maybe the same thinking should apply to other employees, a limit of 5 - 10 employees traveling together, just in case the worst happens. I wonder how this will affect their stock price. They have about 20,000 employees but news like this might scare away investors, we'll see Monday.
- akiselev 13y ago
  In semiconductor companies, that danger is very real. It's a common practice to license major parts of chips such as the silicon IP for peripherals or even entire processors so the teams that intimately know the system design of an entire family of chips can be very small. If the 20 people on the flight were even half the team working on one of Freescale's products, they could have just lost six months to a year. If a startup designing silicon lost that many people, it would probably be irrecoverable.
  - brooksbp 13y ago
    > If the 20 people on the flight were even half the team working on one of Freescale's products, they could have just lost six months to a year. Replacing 20 people even at a company the size of Freescale is not just a "6-12 month setback." I would pull a much larger time frame out of my ass, especially if you were to consider the long-term value these employees had.
- peckrob 13y ago
  I work in a small team of developers (there's about 15 of us). It's been an "unofficial policy" at our company for years that no more than two developers can be on any single flight. Back when we were smaller still (it was just five of us for the longest time), it used to be no two devs could be on the same flight. When we used to go to conferences as a team, managing the logistics of getting five people across the country, leaving from a rather small airport, without duplicating flights took several hours of planning and usually resulted in staggered departure and return days.
  - 1stop 13y ago
    But don't you have a higher chance 3 developers dying in individual car crashes than of 3 developers dying in a single plane crash?
    - TheBiv 13y ago
      Professional drives have statistically less of a probability of fatality than the average every-day driver
    - edwinnathaniel 13y ago
      Yes, and your point is?
      - 1stop 13y ago
        My point is pretty obvious. For those that are a bit slow: Do you come up with policy like only 2 devs can be on the same flight from data or feeling. It seems this is from 'feeling' and the data doesn't support it. If you're still struggling, I'm saying policies like these are likely irrational. Do you still need more help? I could draw you a picture.
    - peckrob 13y ago
      All five of us would go to lunch together most days, often in the same car. We don't much anymore, but that's more due to our size now. When a team reaches a certain point, getting the whole team together to eat is difficult without serious planning. It's always been a rule from management (and an unofficial one, as I said - never formally codified). As a [private] pilot myself, I grok the statistics on aviation safety and understand the training required by the air crew. I understand just how much more dangerous the trip to the airport is than anything that happens after that. But them something like this happens, and I think it's only a natural human inclination to think, "Damn, that could have been us..."
- NamTaf 13y ago
  My company has about 10000 employees and we have strict limits on how many of the board/upper management (C*O) can fly together for that very reason. Us plebeians below that though are under no such limits. That said, we avoid it by the company not feeling like spending the money to make us travel anyway :P
clef 13y ago
Mmmm people die and you wonder about stock price and investors?
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  Wondering about stock price and investors does not imply that we stop caring about the people who died. The two actions are independent. Thus, if we consider the impact of this event, independent of the human impact, it seems obvious that the effect on business could be quite significant. This doesn't diminish the human concern; it's just a different topic.
- keehun 13y ago
  He/She already expressed his sadness at the news as the first thing. It's not like he/she can change what happened to the flight. We're all saddened by it. Learning/Observing the real changes/differences it makes is just another aspect of respecting the impact of the disaster.
diakritikal 13y ago
This is sad news. I was trying to listen to some cello works and this (the music) popped into my recommendations. Not a huge Elgar fan but Nimrod and many of his pieces are very evocative. Hug your partner and children tonight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE

44 points by greenburger 13y ago

dm2 13y ago

That's awful for the people who are dead, their families, and the company. This brings up an important lesson about minimizing risk that many businesses should consider. Many companies forbid the upper management from traveling together in case of a disaster such as this. Maybe the same thinking should apply to other employees, a limit of 5 - 10 employees traveling together, just in case the worst happens. I wonder how this will affect their stock price. They have about 20,000 employees but news like this might scare away investors, we'll see Monday.

akiselev 13y ago
In semiconductor companies, that danger is very real. It's a common practice to license major parts of chips such as the silicon IP for peripherals or even entire processors so the teams that intimately know the system design of an entire family of chips can be very small. If the 20 people on the flight were even half the team working on one of Freescale's products, they could have just lost six months to a year. If a startup designing silicon lost that many people, it would probably be irrecoverable.
- brooksbp 13y ago
  > If the 20 people on the flight were even half the team working on one of Freescale's products, they could have just lost six months to a year. Replacing 20 people even at a company the size of Freescale is not just a "6-12 month setback." I would pull a much larger time frame out of my ass, especially if you were to consider the long-term value these employees had.
peckrob 13y ago
I work in a small team of developers (there's about 15 of us). It's been an "unofficial policy" at our company for years that no more than two developers can be on any single flight. Back when we were smaller still (it was just five of us for the longest time), it used to be no two devs could be on the same flight. When we used to go to conferences as a team, managing the logistics of getting five people across the country, leaving from a rather small airport, without duplicating flights took several hours of planning and usually resulted in staggered departure and return days.
- 1stop 13y ago
  But don't you have a higher chance 3 developers dying in individual car crashes than of 3 developers dying in a single plane crash?
  - TheBiv 13y ago
    Professional drives have statistically less of a probability of fatality than the average every-day driver
  - edwinnathaniel 13y ago
    Yes, and your point is?
    - 1stop 13y ago
      My point is pretty obvious. For those that are a bit slow: Do you come up with policy like only 2 devs can be on the same flight from data or feeling. It seems this is from 'feeling' and the data doesn't support it. If you're still struggling, I'm saying policies like these are likely irrational. Do you still need more help? I could draw you a picture.
  - peckrob 13y ago
    All five of us would go to lunch together most days, often in the same car. We don't much anymore, but that's more due to our size now. When a team reaches a certain point, getting the whole team together to eat is difficult without serious planning. It's always been a rule from management (and an unofficial one, as I said - never formally codified). As a [private] pilot myself, I grok the statistics on aviation safety and understand the training required by the air crew. I understand just how much more dangerous the trip to the airport is than anything that happens after that. But them something like this happens, and I think it's only a natural human inclination to think, "Damn, that could have been us..."
NamTaf 13y ago
My company has about 10000 employees and we have strict limits on how many of the board/upper management (C*O) can fly together for that very reason. Us plebeians below that though are under no such limits. That said, we avoid it by the company not feeling like spending the money to make us travel anyway :P

clef 13y ago

Mmmm people die and you wonder about stock price and investors?

chad_oliver 13y ago
Wondering about stock price and investors does not imply that we stop caring about the people who died. The two actions are independent. Thus, if we consider the impact of this event, independent of the human impact, it seems obvious that the effect on business could be quite significant. This doesn't diminish the human concern; it's just a different topic.
keehun 13y ago
He/She already expressed his sadness at the news as the first thing. It's not like he/she can change what happened to the flight. We're all saddened by it. Learning/Observing the real changes/differences it makes is just another aspect of respecting the impact of the disaster.

diakritikal 13y ago

This is sad news. I was trying to listen to some cello works and this (the music) popped into my recommendations. Not a huge Elgar fan but Nimrod and many of his pieces are very evocative. Hug your partner and children tonight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE