I would hardly consider this as “take those disagreements public”. It’s not like they talked to the press. This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. Ironically, we would never have heard of it if they didn’t fire these employees in retaliation resulting in this lawsuit.
> This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels.
if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long.
Good leadership means being able to recognize criticism from your employees, but this can't come from grassroots effort within the company - it must come from the top.
If the employee disagrees with the direction of the company, and the leadership doesn't want to change (e.g., after voicing the opinion thru sanctioned feedback channels), their only option is to quit, or acquire a controlling share and _become_ the leadership.
Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator - and you know how that will go.
> if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long.
It is hilarious that you (and many other people in this thread, it seems) would consider this letter "undermining leadership's authority". If someone's authority is undermined by a letter like this, they are not much of a leader.
I have worked at companies led by other zillionaires you may have heard of, and seen letters circulate and questions asked live in an all-hands meeting that went much farther than this letter. Those employees got good faith answers to their questions, and still work there. Now that's leadership.
> Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator
This comment is so close to realizing why our current corporate structures are bullshit. Keep going, you're almost there.
corporate structures _are_ dictatorships. The difference between that and a dictator country is that you can't change your country, if the dictator doesn't want you to leave.
> Most physical world thiigs have immediate feedback of incorrectness.
We might not want it to enter such circumstances where there is such feedback - e.g. car has run over a child. We generally aren’t interested in what the AI does in response to such feedback as such feedback should never ever occur.
> And now the Houthi rebels have become battle-hardened guerillas and insurgents, capable of projecting force into the vital shipping lanes of the Red Sea.
Their ability to attack the red sea has nothing to do with being "battle-hardened". They can only do so because Iran decides to supply them with missiles.
Regardless where they get their weapons, Ansar Allah is a battle-hardened, professional fighting force. They have fought the powerful Saudi military to a stalemate. Not a group we should be underestimating.
We were promised a victory many times thanks to the overwhelming power and sophistication western weapons repeatedly. Not "hold off Russia for 2-3 years, not fight to a standstill". Victory and a return to 1991 borders after first severing the land bridge to Crimea. It was a very specific prediction.
To say that they havent lived up to their promise is an understatement given how abysmally they performed in the summer offensive. Vehicles failed especially badly, but the whole ensemble failed categorically for all the world to see.
I dont see how this can be spun as a stalemate or a win and I dont see the demo winning western arms manufacturers any new customers. It also looks like previously intimidated US opponents like the Houthis and Venezuela are also suddenly a lot less intimidated.
If you can find an article from may 2023 that accurately predicts that ukraine could end the offensive with less land than it started off with Id like to see it.
There's more doom and gloom now of course. The failure is hard to ignore.
> an article from may 2023 that accurately predicts that ukraine could end the offensive with less land than it started off with
Everyone I read made predictions conditional on aid, specifically, long-range strike capability and air defence.
Here is Phillips O’Brien on 28 May: “Ukraine has had to fight this war under a series of great handicaps. Its aid has been often technologically limited and always politically limited by NATO countries, primarily the US, with the goal of preventing Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil. By compelling Ukraine to fight almost exclusively on its own soil, Russia has been handled a major asymetric advantage…Ukraine has has to fight this war with one hand tied behind its back while Russia has been given a major advantage in not having to use many resources to defend its own border with Ukraine.”
Which makes sense. That is the operating variable. We didn’t provide that aid in time. So Ukraine mostly held ground. (Breaching the Dnipr and pushing Russia so far back from Sevastopol that its blockade enforcement is now poorer than the Houthis’ should not be understated.)
If you’re seriously following this issue, stay clear of Yahoo! News and ad-funded sources. They’re mostly mouthpieces for influencing domestic aid deliberations. At any given time, you can find sources confidently predicting imminent success and imminent defeat.
>Everyone I read made predictions conditional on aid
Ok and once the aid numbers were published how many of them predicted that Ukraine would end the offensive with less land than it started?
>If you’re seriously following this issue, stay clear of Yahoo! News and ad-funded sources. They’re mostly mouthpieces
Im obviously talking about what the mouthpieces said - what the average person on hacker news will have read and believed.
My sources nailed it. They made fairly specific predictions, most of which came true with a smallish margin of error. They've been predicting a Ukrainian collapse some time between mid 2024 - beginning of 2025 for the last several months.
> We were promised a victory many times thanks to the overwhelming power and sophistication western weapons repeatedly.
You will always be promised victory. I’ve yet to find the first general that preaches defeat.
Anyhow, for the fact that they have to do with a mishmash of whatever they can scrounge up from the allied nations and then use equipment they’re unfamiliar with and barely trained in, I’m kind of happy with the results?
Of course it’s a far cry from a win, but that was always kind of unreasonable to expect.
This things take time. If Churchill would have been rushed to "have a victory in two years in WWII or we'll quit", everybody in Europe would be a nazi today.
This just isn't true. In 2014 the motivation and training of Ukraine's forces was so poor that when encountering the enemy, absent any orders, most would lay down their weapons and join the other side. The majority of the Navy defected. Some western training was received from 2014 to 2020, but the most effective fighters were volunteers who had trained themselves and fought the Enemy completely outside the control of Ukraine's armed forces.
This is like WWII. Hitler also seemed winning at first. He even took the capital. Eventually thanks to allies though Hitler was defeated. In the end USSR lost twice as many millions of its people so in terms of human cost the win was dubious.
The difference is that right now Putler already lost 2x+ as many people as Zelensky, and could not manage to capture the capital. Which was promised how many times? I vaguely remember at first it was "take Kyiv in 3 days", but it's been so long I am forgetting ;)
More than 2x. The people that quit Russia should be included in this count. They are unavailable as soldiers, and having seen the video carnage from the other side and the meat wave tactics will not return voluntarily. For army purposes they are not much different than wounded soldiers lying in an hospital.
Ukraine lost millions of people also, but some of the people that quit Ukraine returned later to fight. At some point both countries will just pivot to start recruiting volunteers overseas.
One side is raising conscription from 40-43. One side is asking women to register for conscription. One side is saying that they need to conscript half a million citizens to replenish losses.
The other side as yet has only called up reservists and recruited volunteers.
Which side would you say is which based upon the losses you have counted?
> One side is raising conscription from 40-43. One side is asking women to register for conscription. One side is saying that they need to conscript half a million citizens to replenish losses.
You can say I'm wrong, fake news and Ukraine suffered more losses. If we pretend it's true, mobilising the entire country makes Ukraine look even more like USSR in WWII. Gotta fend off fascist invaders at any cost. Which thanks to Allies sending a crapton of supplies USSR did. Let's see history repeat itself.
In WW2 the Nazis were trying to exterminate the slavs. In this war Putin is attracting condemnation for handing out passports. This changes the dynamic and the stakes. The two arent really comparable.
It isnt a racism inspired genocide like Israel is committing in Gaza.
> In this war Putin is attracting condemnation for handing out passports.
If you think the condemnation is for handing out passports, you've been well-brainwashed. The war started by Russia against Ukraine has been going for a long time already. Shelling, murder, displacement, all that stuff. They didn't get far in 10 years but they and the militia they financed sure created a lot of hurt. Don't worry, I was like you blissfully unaware but it's never too late to wake up.
Sure, I personally know people from east of Ukraine who moved to Russia. You know why? Because their fucking homes were being bombed.
> It isnt a racism inspired genocide
Sure, it's not a genocide. Hamas will tell you the same, we are not trying to genocide all Jews, it's just Israel oppressing us, yadda yadda. But in reality everyone knows that the moment Israel stops defending there's no Israel but the moment Hamas is disarmed there's peace. It's similar in case of Ukraine and Russia and it should tell you everything you need to know.
> like Israel is committing in Gaza.
It would actually have a lot in common with Hamas terrorism if Hamas controlled a bigger territory with more resources. Fun fact, Russia in fact did/does supply Hamas with arms.
There was some stats released by one side which admitting like a 1:20 disadvantage in artillery shells fired. It should roughly translate to the ratio of losses too ...
The situation is ... strange to say the least. Because no one seems the understand what is happening and those who do pretend not to.
I made the jump from Android fairly early on when I realized that phones are terrible general purpose computers and that I mostly just use it as a phone - i.e. use almost exclusively the restricted subset of features that’s typical of smartphones. I lose nothing moving to the iPhone and gain a better UX (no crap installed by carriers or anyone else for the matter) and get better post sales care (long term updates and quick security patches).
Up until recently, I would have said you were missing out since Android had a lot of unique things. Now, I agree. Android still does notifications better and I loved touch sensor customization like swiping the S8's sensor to open/close notifications menu, but even that may be coming soon with action button being replaced with touch button. Discovering shortcuts was a game changer and the live widgets are great. I'm stuck on iPhone 12 because I want to stay with mini but the dynamic island seems like a great addition.
The only thing I miss is side loading and emulators, but again, even that might be coming. Android literally only has photos and google home devices over me. I don't even care for gmail anymore.
> Yes and even within that they are risk averse, no need to look beyond 10nm and their reluctance to EUV.
Actually from what I heard, their failures with their Intel 7 was partly due to trying too many unproven technologies - i.e. they pulled a Zumwalt. With their current Intel 4 & 3 I heard they were more conservative.
Intel actually had trouble getting 14nm off the ground and it was late to ramp up, that should have been a signal that past progress might be coming to an end. I believe that when things got difficult managements response was to try to catch back up by going crazy on the 10nm jump and it went horribly.
What was more shocking is how long them seemed to be in denial before putting contingency plans in place.
The billions Biden threw their way isn’t really that much when their fabs cost billions to build. Don’t think the grants cover the full cost of their new fabs - it was 50 billion total right divided among all the corporations including TSMC, IIRC.
