MrTonyD

Back when I worked at NeXT we created a lights-out factory in Fremont, CA and then closed it. Steve said that we were moving it offshore to be closer to where the parts were manufactured. At the same time, I was told by some employees who worked on creating the automated factory that the real reason for moving it was completely different. They told me that the goal was to sell it to a group of Executives who could then charge the company for manufacturing the machines and avoid US taxes by sending the money offshore as a business expense. It was sold to a group of Executives so that they could avoid any one Executive being technically in "control" of the offshore. I was also told that the group of Executives included theoretical "competitors", and they traded "favors" for shared ownership.

I can't confirm any of this - but it is consistent with other things done to avoid taxes. (Steve was once successfully prosecuted for avoiding taxes using an offshore. After that, he got better accountants to make sure his tax dodges could withstand legal scrutiny.)

I'd prefer that our society classifies it as illegal rather than evil or immoral. We need to have laws which also take away the acquired wealth from those who benefit from such practices.

I was just reading the book "The House of Morgan" and it describes how companies are purchased when they don't maximize short term profit. The bankers and executives make sure that they make millions in the transfer, and then the brand is cheapened to get more profit, usually at the expense of the customers and employees, and then the company is sold again to get more millions for the executives and bankers. They don't really care if the company goes under or they destroy society as a side effect - it is all about making more millions for the already rich principals.

I've worked with lots of Harvard graduates over the years. They all seemed to be cloned with some kind of "group-think" about Economics. Essentially, they were all convinced that markets solved big problems, and anything vaguely Keynesian or Socialist or Marxist was doomed to failure.

So I guess I view Harvard Economics as a tool of those with power, and probably something which has contributed to creating a worse world. (Hey, I believe markets have benefits too, but not to the point of dismissing moderating policies.)

If I remember correctly Steinbeck's doctor was a friend from his days at Stanford. So we aren't talking about traditional doctor/patient relationships.

Steinbeck is amazing. He would recite his books as he wrote them - he believed that words were meant to be spoken. He wrote for the spoken word rather than the written word. I also saw a few pages of his revisions on one of his books - he revised his "standard" sentences into "colorful" sentences. So his writing was definitely a result of hard work and creativity - and in my mind moves his writings into the realm of true art.

Well, I spent a number of years writing drivers for PC systems. Some years the I/O chips were faster than CPU, and some years the CPU was faster than I/O chips. DMA was usually slower, just because release cycles for CPUs tended to be faster than release cycles for I/O controllers. Eventually, most driver writers decided that it was usually better to use CPU, even if the I/O controller was faster. That way, when the CPU got upgraded, you would automatically get a speed boost. While programming an I/O controller was both more arcane and more more likely to require a complete reimplementation in a couple of years (as well as customer complaints and market share losses.)

I'm not saying that things are the same today - but it kind of sounds to me like they are. Back in the days, people were always claiming that we should switch to the newest and fastest I/O controller since CPUs were more general purpose and would therefore always be slower. It just didn't work out that way in practice.

And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.

I don't like all the toxic positivity that has been growing in the workplace. This has changed a lot since my early days in Silicon Valley. My impression is that different countries have different "power distance" - a measure of submission to authority.

As the workforce has changed, with more hiring from "high power distance" countries, there are more "yes men" enthusiastically agreeing to anything that any incompetent executive wants.

Of course, the executives like this, and promote those who are "easy to get along with" and who are happy to "implement their vision". But I think history will show that this is one of the things which has contributed to the culture decline in Silicon Valley - from producing useful products to producing maximum profit regardless of any contribution to society. Right now, for example, I'm at yet another company with several incompetent managers who are supported by technical "yes men". They know that we are making idiotic technical decisions, but they would never openly disagree.

I wonder if this is just another effect of regulatory capture? Government should set some minimum standards for things which impact quality of life.

Another aspect is autonomy. It is routine in most companies for a low level incompetent manager to be able to waste all the time and talent of a senior engineer. So the issue is more than just money.

I ran my own company for a few years just to make money to stop working so I could contribute to open source. By the time I finally made enough to not have to worry about money anymore, I had spent enough years working with open source to realize that big companies get great benefits (I was in meetings with HP, IBM, and Oracle VPs where open source was being supported to transfer responsibility and costs away from those companies.) At the same time, it is Software Developers and associated staffs which lose income. There is also less profit to invest in high quality documentation, training, support, and research (ever notice how most open source companies didn't actually develop the technology - they are just monetizing it through support or consulting?)

So I had the chance to live my dream - supporting our community through open source - but realized that it was ultimately the wrong dream for our society.

There are lots of effective things - enforce a healthy diet, monitor everyone continuously, reduce the population to improve the environment, put criminals to death.

The goal of a society should not be "to be effective, efficient, and cost-justified". Other values must be considered.

Knowledge can be gain through proven datapoints and unproven datapoints. Insisting on proof reflects a particular type of ignorance -- the ignorance of someone who hasn't deeply reflected on the history of the advancement of knowledge.