I don't know, I'd rather be an early Apple's employee or part of the first iPhone team, witnessing a major new chapter of computing, than a comfortable developer in a comfortable setting.
True! And, this was change the world kind of stuff — it wasn’t being “mean” for the hell of it, it was being “mean” in the pursuit of a vision. It doesn’t excuse “being mean,” but it’s far different than having some jackass middle manager at some consulting firm yelling about TPS reports.
It’s like the drill sergeant phenomenon— harsh leadership can have a place when attempting to forge ahead in a difficult mission as it often motivates the team to accomplish more than would normally be considered comfortable (or even healthy.)
An asshole boss on a mission is far preferable (to me,) than a “nice” boss driven by nothing other than maintaining the status quo.
Asshole bosses maintaining the status quo — now that genuinely sucks.
>True! And, this was change the world kind of stuff — it wasn’t being “mean” for the hell of it, it was being “mean” in the pursuit of a vision. It doesn’t excuse “being mean,” but it’s far different than having some jackass middle manager at some consulting firm yelling about TPS reports.
I don't think the meanness helped in creating the vision. They're two entirely separate things
>An asshole boss on a mission is far preferable (to me,) than a “nice” boss driven by nothing other than maintaining the status quo.
I'll agree on that, but still my experience has been that the bosses that extracted the most work from their employees were the ones that could give praise where it was due. I think Apple made it in spite of Steve Jobs character flaws, not because of them.
> The US military has sunk $50 Billion dollars into this problem over the last 30 years and still aren't there.
I suppose by "this problem" you referred to tilt-rotor technology. If so V-22 is combat ready, and has been deployed since 2007. Not sure what "still aren't there" means.
The next generation, Bell V-280 is in active development and already made the first flight [0]
> The very structure of a corporation today means it is incentivized to sneak by and almost break as many laws as possible to be short-term profitable
Can you elaborate on how corporation today are structured toward short term profitability? and how we can change it to balance between "do no evil" vs. profitability?
That person may however learn to become caregiver, healthcare worker, or another society supporting worker.
As automation and AI take bigger roles, couple with the population aging, we the human being need more and more support from other human fellows, and those professions become more important.
Statistically speaking, I agree that comparison isn't helpful. At the same time we have to take into account it's still learning phase for self-driving. I'd be interested to learn from the history how well automobile was received by public a century ago, and whether the accident rate spiked early on.
True, but this is no difference than when there is a major incident (e.g. construction) on the thoroughfare and the surrounding quiet streets become the detour. Unless the algorithm mistakenly makes it a permanent preference.
Stock trading is just one of many ways aimed at making capital available to whomever need it. Without capital Olivetti may not have existed in the first place (assuming they borrowed money during their existence).
You may blame lax of regulation in this regard, which may be fair. But blaming capitalism in general is disingenuous
It's news because Tesla projected to have delivered 1,500 Model 3 by end of 3rd quarter. They missed that milestone. Simple as that.
I wouldn't read too much into this myself. Scaling production is hard. Regardless, it's an important metric that speaks to Tesla's ability to deliver, at least short term.
Talking about turnover. Any ideas how that's for Uber compared to Lyft et al.?