Hacker News Reader

Comment by etempleton | Hacker News Reader

The board’s lack of technical or even product expertise struck me when it was announced Gelsinger would abruptly retire. They don’t have the chops to be the wartime board Intel needs. They likely have no idea if Gelsinger was on the right path or chasing a dream. I believe Gelsinger was the right person for the job, but the board wasn’t and isn’t. The board would have had to approve of his plans. They should have known what they were signing up for.

For Gelsinger’s part he was probably too cavalier with finances and market sentiment to ever sustain any political capital.

View on HN

I agree that the board's lack of technical expertise is an issue, but I think the root issue is - and hear me out, because this sounds ridiculous - the vibes.

At the end of the day, a company is a machine to turn employee labor into revenue. Intel has clearly been a sinking ship for years now. What kind of people work at a failing company? What kind of people serve on its board? Is this portrait of the board not a portrait of any other failing business?

Its on the CEO if he cant convince with a plan to turn the ship around and sell that story.

Interesting take, but wouldn't also have the chance to attract the exactly right people too? Renegades, outcasts who dreamed too big for Nvidia or never got the opportunity at TSMC maybe?

There are many comeback stories, Apple being a particularly great one.

There are also a lot of geopolitical interests in helping Intel succeed. As much as investors might balk at Intel today, the amount of money that Western governments can toss at the problem is effectively infinite. (Looking at Defense contractors as an example; horrendously inefficient, but tax revenue is effectively perpetually guaranteed to keep flowing.)

It's silly to frame it this way, but even though the US and allies pay gobs for planes like the F-35, it's also what continues to allow the stream of taxable money to continue.

I view Intel in a similar light. Even if they stay inefficient, there will still be money for a long time because the West needs a way to be self-sufficient. The cost of not having a backup is too high (tens of trillions of dollars when I last looked into it).

It's a weird market that doesn't obey a lot of the conventional rules of capitalism. Yes, it would be better if Intel were able to compete without government subsidies, and maybe they will. But even if they don't it's very unlikely they'll totally crater because of how central this "power" is, and TSMC will never cede full control of their latest tech until the UN recognizes Taiwan as a distinct entity from China (imo).

The F-35 is actually an extremely affordable 5th generation fighter aircraft.

It is cheaper per unit then some 4th generation aircraft now.

Yes, the F-35 costs just $34,000 per flight hour.

That's much cheaper than, say, Pat Gelsinger whose total comp was $86,000 per hour in 2021.

Not to mention from the US Govt perspective it keeps thousands of people employed in well paying jobs and extends domestic expertise and capabilities.

Well, the current US administration was committed to helping Intel succeed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act), not so sure about the incoming one. Maybe that also played a part in the decision?

Exactly. It's a "too big to fail" with a touch of "what are you gonna do, let me go bankrupt?" situation.

However, subsidies always come with requirements for companies to fulfill. While it may sound great that Intel is getting billions of dollars in money to build and operate new fabs in the US, those fabs come with massive operating expenses. Unless Intel finds a whole lot of new product to run through those fabs, and soon, the subsidies could end up putting Intel in an even worse financial hole than it is already.

Intel needs to change its internal culture to get back on a path towards success. I don't know if any CEO is capable of fighting and winning that battle within the span of a few years, and time is running out.

Part of what impresses me about TSMC are some of the anecdotes that have trickled out about how they approach process R&D. TSMC runs experiments 24/7 with each team building on the results of the previous shift. This allows it to iterate much faster than many competitors. It is that kind of dedication and drive that Intel needs to push its leading edge manufacturing capabilities back into world class status, but that isn't the kind of change that can be achieved purely by throwing money at the problem.

Too bad Andy Grove is dead.

Such people are not hired by this companies, the hiring process is strongly against them. Also such people have better things in life to do and fight for, not the worst of the corporate world and a board of pokemons.

I don't want to belittle Apple's success, but managing the turnaround at Apple didn't require the kind of long-term planning and commitment that investments in semiconductor manufacturing require.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Apple is a huge hardware machine, and has been, since Day One. They not only have to deal with manufacturing hardware, but also promotion and distribution, which is not for the faint of heart. Most of Intel's work is B2B, while Apple is B2C.

Steve Jobs was particularly good at playing The Long Game; something American CEOs generally suck at.

While it’s true that hardware was a central part of Apple’s turnaround, it was the comparatively simple and quick hardware of designing boards with off the shelf parts (at the time). That’s actually closer to software than the “hire the bulldozers to break ground for the building that is designed from blueprints to house the highly custom machines designed to make the chips using the fab processes that we’re betting the company on” kind of hardware.

At its core, Intel (like TSMC) is more of a manufacturing company than a tech company.

I was thinking more about the long-term planning that Jobs was so known for. He would develop product lines that would take years to break even. Not all were able to make the cut.

I worked for a Japanese corporation, and most of their initiatives had decade-long timelines.

US companies tend to have 3-month-long timelines (I have no idea why /s).

> US companies tend to have 3-month-long timelines (I have no idea why /s).

I don’t understand this platitude because the largest and most profitable businesses in the world, US tech and pharma companies, have very long timelines.

Amazon took 20+ years to literally build infrastructure, the early investors of Facebook were not looking for a 3 month payday, they invested billions for the 10+ year payday.

See the HN threads for when Zuckerberg paid for Instagram and WhatsApp, with so many wondering how he would recoup the enormous investment.

Apple probably plowed billions into watches AirPods and M processors for years before it saw a return, going so far as to lend money to TSMC for many years with no guarantee of TSMC being able to make the product they wanted.

Tesla, Alphabet’s Waymo bet, Uber, Nvidia, so many publicly listed businesses have a years long timelines

Same for US pharma, it takes decades to get a product to market, with a high chance it never does.

Every single example that you gave, had visionaries behind the long-term pushes.

Steve Jobs had a lot of failures. It's just that his successes were so successful, that people forget about the duds.

These visionaries don't just have plans, they have fiendish plots, that would make a Grand Vizier hang his head in shame.

But they move on, and that's when the "quarter-miners" inevitably move in.

The formula seems to be “businesses led by people with long term goals + filled with employees capable of executing + luck”.

I don’t think “US” is a useful qualifier, publicly listed businesses all over the world have the same short-termism without the right ingredients.

The Japanese basically have "long-terminism" baked into their corporate bylaws.

The company I worked for, is a pretty "old-fashioned" one, so may no longer be representative of the standard, but it didn't matter who was in charge. All planning was done in 10/5/3/1 year process; with the goals getting "sharper," as you approached zero.

It was not particularly conducive to software development, but worked fairly well, for most of the stuff they made.

Apple Watch, AirPods, and M-Series chips are all squarely Tim Cook-era products.

Cook became CEO in 2011. Apple Watch started development after Jobs’ death. It was announced in 2014. AirPods were 2015. M-Series chips shipped in November 2020.

Good points. Thanks for the corrections.

But I also never considered Tim Cook a "quarter-miner." In fact, I think that he's known for standing up to them.

Apple today is known as a totally unreliable partner when it comes to developing and deploying tech. The OLED factories come to mind.

I think attracting these sorts of minds also depends on the resources a company can provide to them. Right now intel is keeping their belt tight. Iirc, there was a whole team of brilliant engineers who were working on a RISC V project let go from Intel late summer/early fall. I’ve read about talks regarding a sort of brain drain occuring.

Intel won't go down after receiving the billions it did for foundries. The USA doesn't burn money. IBM 2.0

The billions are just a drop in the Intel bucket.

Intel won't go down, US lawmakers are determined to prevent that from happening. Any government rescue will however cause Intel shareholders to lose their money. Which is presumably why investors aren't too happy about the current situation.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-might-be-to...

> the vibes

I went to lunch the other day with a friend. We had both worked at Intel during our early careers, and we still know people who are there over 20 years later.

Of course the topic arose of our old workplace. We had a great time there it should be said. But neither of us stayed on, and it was vibes.

Even at that time, as a young guy in university, I thought something was wrong. I couldn't tell what, since I was a young guy who barely knew anything about the business. But I knew that I felt uncomfortable about potentially spending decades at a place where everyone was so relaxed. There was no urgency. People would come in, find a colleague to have coffee with, and that was their day. I checked with the other interns as well, it was really chill.

I was working on my thesis, and my team was working on rolling out what would later be called WiFi. Amazingly, part of the strategy was to slow down certain standards, because we were behind in some of the fabs. That didn't seem like what you would do as a cutting-edge technology company. People at the all-hands would ask things like "should we keep AMD around just for show? So that we aren't a monopoly?". Well, that problem has been solved now.

I got offered a permanent role but never even considered it.

A phenomena so common it has a name:

https://medium.com/geekculture/the-dead-sea-effect-d71df1372...

It’s so easy to fix with competent leadership. Kind of sad to see the state of American “leaders”

I recently left a big company exactly for this reason. And the sibling post is probably right, the Dead Sea affect probably plays a huge role. I didn’t see very many people that were ambitious and it was way too “relaxed”.

As someone who worked at Intel for 5ish years a while ago, I partly agree. There was a fatalism to the culture; a sense that any initiative had to be simultaneously super low risk and guaranteed to generate $1B in revenue within a couple of years. It had to be 100% predictable and planned month by month years in advance, and also exactly what customers would want on day one.

The people who “succeeded” were those who could sell that story to the finance org (who essentially made all the product decisions), and who could move onward and upward before the fairy tale collapsed.

The disconnect between the aspirational culture (risk taking, tech-forward, customer-focused) and the real culture (risk averse, finance-forward, planning-focused) was extreme. The whole place was like a filter designed to retain only those who had no interest or capability to fix the systemic issues.

This describes almost every large enterprise I've ever done work for or worked at.

In most giant companies it is a reasonable strategy.

The critical difference is most large companies don’t need to innovate. United doesn’t design aircraft, airports, etc they compete with other huge companies in an extremely capital intensive industry and execution is what matters.

FedEx, Walmart, Bank of America, etc all need to keep up with their competitors but there’s no need to make risky bets when slow and steady brings in billions of revenue and nothing external is going to drive them out of business quickly.

Intel essentially forgot just how ruthless their industry was and got crushed.

I think all major airlines have pretty much gotten to the point of bankruptcy without bailouts

Again a logical choice.

Much like banks the boards of airlines are incentivized to have high levels of debt supported dividends / buybacks because it’s a highly volatile industry. Money isn’t clawed back from investors, but cash reserves disappear in a downturn.

Really any high risk industry where profits can be extracted in good times faces the same issues. The possibility for concessions from governments or people they owe money to like retires and bond holders etc, then repeat the cycle while maintaining control incentives high risk strategies because they are leveraging other people’s money.

Not even large companies. High margin companies tend to always think the same way. Don’t rock the boat. Change is the enemy. Eventually people lose track of what made the company profitable in the first place and simply follow the same process religiously. Suggestions to evolve or change the process are met with hostility.

> There was a fatalism to the culture; a sense that any initiative had to be simultaneously super low risk and guaranteed to generate $1B in revenue within a couple of years. It had to be 100% predictable and planned month by month years in advance

Ultimately, this is what MBA-style corporations do. They want unfettered predictability and massive revenues from every initiative. They even set up corporate structures to penalize failures.

As a result, layers and layers of managers, and managers and engineers are all risk averse. They will be penalized for being wrong, their jobs and livelihoods are put on stake.

What does one expect in such an environment? Innovation/risk-taking or politics of self-preservation/blaming/backstabbing?

The MBA-style is a failure for innovation and Intel should be a case study in every MBA school.

Have you ever taken an MBA course? It's so weird for you to refer to "MBA-style corporations" considering that "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton M. Christensen has literally been a core text in most MBA programs for decades. If anything, Intel has become an anti MBA-style corporation.

https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/10706-PDF-ENG

"MBA-style corporations" does not mean that they have read the innovators dilemma.

An MBA-style corporation is one that is lost in a vast trove of metrics. They focus too much on the birds-eye view dashboard style of work - ultimately forgetting that it is less important to meet metrics and more important to keep innovating.

The metric-driven production is well suited for warehouses and factories where every unit is the same as the other. Because every unit is the same your business can focus on eeking optimizations visible via metrics.

But technology is not like that at all. Every unit of production is so different from one another. You cannot have a top heavy company that is just focusing on metrics. You need the top to be intelligently engaged with market, customers, systems, and employees.

Put in another words, if your company's primary focus is margin management, shareholder return, and squeezing production (MBA-school style), your company will have a very very hard time innovating.

Case in point - Intel - which has haemorrhaged itself with years of focus on buybacks and dividends and unit production - but not studying the market, studying modern tech, and innovation.

I think the issue with MBA-led companies is that you have people with an MBA that have very little direct experience. The MBA itself is useful, but detached from the experience of the industry and organization leads to misguided thinking.

That is correct. MBA degree can be useful. But just hiring an MBA who doesn't have an appreciation and skill in the domain is just going to do what they can - counting metrics.

Eh, I have an MBA, and that is not at all my experience. At my program, there was a ton of focus on agility, avoiding sunk cost fallacies, the importance of a healthy corporate culture, what a tax elaborate structures can be, and so on.

And it was before Intel failed, but we had case studies on IBM, Enron, and General Motors and how misaligned incentives led to incompetence, corruption, and failure.

You may have had bad experiences with some individual MBAs (they run the gamut, just like everyone else), or you may have absorbed some stereotypes, but that's really not at all what is taught.

I was not aware that my last two companies have secretly been Intel because every one of these factors applied to them.

It’s really another aspect of the innovator’s dilemma - interesting $-wise and margin-wise is so limited that they end up never doing anything interesting.

It is a problem really specific to high margin companies.

You actually don’t see this behavior at low margin businesses because the spectrum of things that can be done which aren’t immediately labeled a margin drag is a lot wider.

The company I work for now put all the up front effort into a new product line which would lilekk pk y have easily gotten to a billion or two a year within 3y with the right customer wins, but out normal margin is very high and the new line of business would have been very profitable objectively but would have been a margin drag. Every dollar would have lowered the gross and net margin.

Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

Intel's innovate or die culture died years ago

Inertia has taken its time but the company itself is catching up

The pay is ridiculously low. Lower than tsmc in Taiwan on a ppp basis (not that far off in raw $ terms). Much lower than tiny hardware startups in the USA. Monumentally lower than AMD or nvidia, especially with stock grants factored in.

No pay rises for over 20years now. Layoffs on a routine basis. They asked everyone to take a pay cut last year. All of this in an extremely competitive labour market.

It’s pretty obvious to anyone that a job at intel is temporary. You take the job and do the bare minimum (because hey you’re paid bare minimum) and keep looking. There isn’t going to be a single employee outside the board at intel who isn’t browsing for a new job given the wage disparity. Everyone knows this. If you have a brilliant improvement for process keep it to yourself and take it to the next job. A low level position at a startup pays more than a senior role at intel at this point. It’s a laughing stock and the most recent statement at the last earnings was more layoffs and wage freezes to give more shareholder value.

They already have 0 serious talent and nobody gives a fuck there, reasonably so. “You’re going to lay me off from by far the lowest paying company in tech if I don’t give 100%?” “Ok!”.

It’s such a joke of a company and has been for 20 years now and the investors have made it clear they want another 20 years of this.

Do you want $77k/yr for a job with degree requirements at intel in an extremely high cost of living area or would you rather get well over $200k/yr at a competitor for the exact same job description. Lol. This was one random example out of pretty much any role at intel just to give awareness of how dire 20 years of wage freezes from short term investors becomes over time.

https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Intel-Corporation/job-titles/Inte...

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NVIDIA-Signal-Integrity-Eng...

Wow $77k holy shit that's uhh not doing so well with inflation.

Yeah I think people don’t realize just how dire it is at Intel. The talk above of the culture being on a death march can easily be explained by the jobs at intel having literally nothing at stake. And they announced even more layoffs and wage freezes at the last quarterly earnings.

It’s not an engineering run company like the successful big tech companies. Everyone working at intel is there temporarily and there’s no reason to build a long term career there. You jump asap.

I don’t see the shareholders voting for a reasonable tripling (quadrupling?) of engineer salaries anytime soon given the short term thinking track record. Which means I think the only way out is for an entirely new engineer run company to appear.

Intel have run on momentum to this point. They actually have 10nm foundries operational due to some level of talent continuing to persist over the past 20 years. They can’t seem to get much further past that (smaller nodes than that have reported terrible yields). They have more or less competitive cpus for sale (although they clearly hit a wall in that aspect to the point the latest CPUs bench exactly the same or worse than their own previous generations).

I think the momentum has definitely run out and the talent is gone at this point. The momentum is now in the other direction. Morale is dire, no one working there gives anymore of a fuck about their job than the kid pushing trolleys at the grocery store. Their CPUs are not advancing with each generation at all anymore and they cannot get reasonable yields on newer fab nodes.

People seeking permanent US residency via an H-1B visa want to work at a failing company. And I don't blame them; from their perspective it's a totally rational choice as long as the company doesn't fire them before they get a green card.

Not just let of technical experience, but the experience they do have is scary. Gregory Smith, for example, who is "the former CFO and EVP of operations at Boeing. He’s been on the board since 2017 and was an interim CEO at Boeing during 2020...probably be directly involved with the Boeing fiasco."

Someone like that should be facing criminal negligence charges, not sitting on boards.

Truly a comical choice for a board member

It's an indictment of the capitalist system. There's supposed to be oversight that ensure our organizations are run by capable people. But you look at this board (and I'm sure a few others) and it's clear they are not worth the money they are paid. What is anyone even thinking, having a guy from Boeing there?

The board is also too big, and filled with irrelevant people. Four or five specialists who know the area, and one or two financial side people, that's all you need. Too many chefs = nobody's cooking, nobody is responsible.

> It's an indictment of the capitalist system.

Do you have any evidence, that any other system, has demonstrated historical immunity to this problem? Last I checked, the Soviet system put some awfully unqualified people in charge of nuclear plants, and we know how that went. Last I checked, China put some awfully unqualified people in charge of the housing market, and we know how that's going.

The correct response is that unqualified people in positions of power has plagued every social structure. Arguably, alternative systems have failed in this regard to even worse degrees, with far more catastrophic outcomes.

> Do you have any evidence, that any other system, has demonstrated historical immunity to this problem?

That's not the point though. Our current system seems to not work. If it worked, you would think a tech giant like Intel would be well managed.

That doesn't mean I think we should go the Soviet route, it means the current system needs to be fixed. How to fix it? I'm not too sure, the answer would probably take quite a deep dive into how the stock market works, governance, and so on.

It’s too late. It was too late 18 months ago. Nvidia is over 30x bigger. Qualcomm is 2x, AMD is 2x. Intel needs a world beater, like tomorrow. Qualcomm offered to buy them, no idea what the terms are but he’d have to beat those terms, right? That had to be the death blow.

AMD has already shipped ARM parts in the recentish time frame (Opteron A1100) there are rumors that they have internal arm projects that can be ready quickly. All the other part makers are all in with ARM. Intel is on an island. Throw the customization that MS and AWS are doing, unless they have something magical, tomorrow, it’s just hard to see.

> All the other part makers are all in with ARM. Intel is on an island.

Intel also has an ARM architecture license… they sold Marvell the Xscale assets, but retained rights to produce ARM chips should they desire to do so in the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XScale

Sure, but then they're competing with everyone else in a fair fight. Which means either taking a huge hit on margins, or having a product with enough of a performance delta to justify prices somewhere near today's.

The problem isn't so much x64 vs ARM but that, more broadly, high-performance CPUs are becoming commoditised.

Which is why Pat was on the right track imho with foundry. It’s too bad he won’t have the tenure needed to see the outcome of 18a, good or bad.

Even Arm is tenuous at best with risc-v right on its heels.

> It’s too late. It was too late 18 months ago. Nvidia is over 30x bigger. Qualcomm is 2x, AMD is 2x.

AMD came back from odds much longer than this. At its nadir, AMD's market cap was about a billion. A billion! Jensen's jacket collection is worth more than that.

Anyway, it's not looking good for Intel but it's certainly not "too late".

> nadir

Great word, TIL.

If they can dominate with process, no it’s not too late. If their process is on par with TSMC? I don’t know. Like I said, they need a world beater else margins erode dramatically. They have assets, they have value and Intel has done it again and again for decades but unless there is something that is a tier better than anything else margins drop and they just forced their “technical CEO” out.

They have had ultra success in the past, I don’t see anything on the roadmap to suggest a repeat of that, there is a lot of institutional memory of that success. With a long term plan, a board that is knows it’s going to be a journey and the CHIPS money, there is a story, make X86S a reality… I think there will be incredible pressure to cut and sell it though. If the new fabrication technology is only as good as the competition, I think that makes Intel an even more attractive take over target for the fabless giants

> It’s too late.

Hardly.

Intel has fabs and, as we found out from Covid, we don't have capacity in old nodes either. Intel can very much still print money.

Fabless companies are really cool--until shit hits the fan and nobody will run your chips anymore--but, hey, who cares, it's not like that ever happens, right? I mean you'd have to get an enemy invasion or terrorist bombing or tsunami or earthquake or fire in the fab line or global pandemic--and, pfft, how common are those, really?

All it takes is some high-level dumbass trying to curry favor with Pooh Bear over Taiwan and suddenly Nvidia, Qualcomm, Apple, etc. have a net value of zero for the forseeable future.

But, hey, it's super more profitable to not actually have all that icky manufacturing. Ewwwwwww.

Yup. Fabless is also totally dependant on churning out good designs. Intel's current gen chips are fine, compared to AMDs. Not great, not terrible, just competitive.

The reason Intel are worth less is because investors are actually assigning negative value to their fabs - until they see Intel churning out advanced chips again it's just a money pit.

Are AMD chips wearing out after a few years?

They arent fine.

Intel seems to be cutting corners to be faster what made their tech full of security issues. Now those issues are fixed by microcode.. and chips become less efficient.

They also oxidize?

> suddenly Nvidia, Qualcomm, Apple, etc. have a net value of zero for the forseeable future.

That is an exaggeration. There is still Samsung, Nvidia even fabbed there few years back. It's worse than TSMC, but it's not like Intel is the only alternative.

Thats a great idea until China and NK launch a coordinated attack on both Taiwan and South Korea

Samsung is in TX too

We should definitely be prepared when China attacks USA. Supersonic missiles to the fabs, ASML, Tel facilities too.

Maybe we should make fabs on moon, just as an insurance.

That's not a joke BTW. If China attacks both SK and TW, that's a war with US and this will happen. Fabs in USA will be a very valid military target.

In a pacific escalation scenario, which I don't think is farfetched in the next decade, the CONUS would still be safe at least short of nuclear exchange.

Re-engineering a product for a different fab often takes years. And, if TSMC goes dead, nobody, not Samsung or Intel or anybody, would be able to absorb all the volume required, anyway.

Yeah, you are right. Though I am not worried about latest and greatest. We can easily run everything on Sandy Bridge from 2011. It's the other stuff that is underappreciated.

Everything has chips in it. From thermometers through vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, fridges, doorbells. And that is just consumer stuff. The machines that make the goods are full of electronics too. All infrastructure, from water to red lights, medical equipment...

We got a very, very small taste of it for cars in last crisis. And nobody is building fabs for legacy chips... Except China.

> All it takes is some high-level dumbass trying to curry favor with Pooh Bear over Taiwan

Or just one large earthquake to disrupt production for a few months. I'm sure that TSMC has planed for earthquakes, but they are still highly centralized, where as Intels have their fabs spread out nicely (not all the same node size so if you really need 5nm you might still be in trouble).

Maybw centralization is the competetive edge.

Their best people can easily move from fab to fab.

definitely not too late. plenty of cases in tech where worse comebacks were achieved. amd is a good example mentioned elsewhere in the thread. jobs brought apple back after it was months away from bankruptcy. even Nvidia itself was close to being fucked when its cuda bet was early and wasn't paying off yet -- Jensen talks about this in interviews

Market cap are by no means an indicator of the future of a company! I bought AMD shares when their market cap was 20x smaller than today and everyone was telling me that AMD didn't stand a single chance vs Intel. I'm pretty sure that you were that guy then.

Isn't there some business cycle where companies reach the 'fattened pig' phase, and then wall street just feeds on it.

Isn't this what that looks like? Nobody is really 'saving' Intel. They are eating it.

Prediction: now that the bean counters taking over is complete, Intel will sell off its hardware branch and turn into a consultancy service like IBM

I don’t see this happening

95-99%+ of their revenue is from hardware

IBM had diversified for decades before evaporating completely

With Intel outsourcing more and more fab work, and you have ARM slowly taking over, they’re slowly becoming middlemen architecture design consultants. Going to get worse as the market starts buying less and less of it too

Reply on news.ycombinator.com