achillesheels

Really? Google is a product of luck and not centuries of the willfully successful extensions of men, e.g. Leland Stanford, on this continent?

What, in your estimation, can be controlled then?

Picking up feminine hobbies definitely balances out the need for constant mathematically rigorous accuracy. It softens the mind to enjoy the ride ;)

You are assuming that the institutions are making worthwhile "epistemological risks"; when, clearly, there is a lack of the facilitation of the knowledge of Fourier Mathematics (e.g. the Fourier Transform) in virtually every scientific discipline. Yet this is what most of these researchers involve themselves with everyday with their digital computations. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

I'm curious if in your generalization are there any references to cite? I am in desperate agreement with you, but sources are needed! (Irony unintended)

It simply requires more self-reliant men and women to be bold with the truth as opposed to rationalizing some future comfortable well-being which is being jeopardized. If anything, being outwardly self-righteous filters out those who have secrets to hide.-Joseph Ariel Hazani

Is the goal to cure cancer or to have a black woman cure cancer? Which is the more efficient cause?

Entrenchment.

From the B2B side, demand is validated when multiple (>10) organizations are willing to schedule time (30 minutes) to watch your demo. That requires scheduling and team efforts. That’s when you know the pain is real.

“To secure the peace, one must prepare for war.”

It is a world-historical moral affirmation to deny sensual pleasures, likely because this recursiveness causes us to live closer to animals seeking utility from their bodies than immortals.

"But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us; for even if it be small in bulk, much more does it in power and worth surpass everything."-Aristotle, Nichomachaen Ethics, Book X, 6

They created the game.

Is the enterprise necessary to be manned?

I think you are abstracting the personnel too much from your analysis. Clearly Apple, for example, persists and thrives in a world with such dynamism. The difference is one of talent, and the internal organization therein.

>I think you missed the part where I said this was not moral or virtuous. Don't go looking for virtue. You won't find it.

That's like, your opinion, man. There are plenty of businesses that run with integrity as a necessary motivation to sustain their future profitability. This ends up causing a more virtuous society where people do not need to tolerate evil in order to survive.

I don't buy into your argument for "effectively improving the world", i.e. one can keep a clear conscience and do extraordinarily well in life, metabolically speaking. And that's the point: the goal in life is not measured by temporal goods. But that's like my opinion, man.

Good points. Will you agree that businesses die due to unprofitability? And what causes unprofitability in a firm? One might answer a whole slew of reasons, such as profit erosions, but it is mostly due to lack of innovation; at least at the rate in which business cycles naturally move external to the business firm. It is the decaying rate of sales growth, then, which seems tautological, but what underlies the inability for firms such as IBM to continue to grow?

I recognize it takes four years for McDonalds to add a new product to their global supply chain. That is a symptom of scale which the administration therein attempts to streamline. In the likes of $KO, I would wager there is less complexity in the internal administration of manufacturing a beverage which has not changed in recipe in a century, and which takes nearly the same amount of time to launch diet coke. The good manufacturing practices, in other words, have not changed nor do they need to as KO continues to grow in market share globally for beverages.

Meanwhile, business computing has simply exploded since 2010 yet IBM's revenue has shrunk ~30%. Are you to suggest it is not the personnel that are responsible for its tepid business development in response to a market which moves fast and breaks things? That maybe the preservation of the internal cohesiveness of the organization as intrinsically valuable kills companies in the presence of new market environments which the organization is motivated to be responsive at the risk of termination? I advise reading The Innovator's Dilemma to corroborate my assumption.

Fair point regarding the golden goose. My point is there is more motivation to keep things as-is then to continue to adapt. Why is that? Because all the key decision-makers can just get up and leave when revenue starts to deteriorate. The good ones always do, because they are in it for more than a paycheck to support their mortgages.

Give birth and do not possess-Tao Te Ching, 10

>I see a lot of startups dying, much more than fortune 500 companies. Can I now conclude not having processes kills companies faster?

No you cannot, because your starting premise is flawed. One organization has demonstrated its value over time - quite possibly inter-generationally - and the other has not proven its certainty in returning income. And what created that value in time? The people. With startups, it could be the idea.

>It's not that this thread advices to shrug it off. They try to explain why some things can't go faster that easily and what seems cloggy and stupid can still be an effective machine at scale.

My point is it looks effective, but the S&P 500 historically demonstrates bureaucracies asphyxiate. I'm simply pointing that out to people in this thread who likely participate in the miscarriage of organizational competency.

The end of a for-profit company, I will agree, is to profit, but what end is that for humanity? You imply that moral corruption toward profitable ends is of no difference to those where righteousness in action creates profitability to the owners of the business firm, e.g. honest income. What if the managers you advise working for are evil? You seem to affirm that it is not your problem so long as you are succeeding at making money. That there is no difference in profiting at a usurious bank than a charitable one, indeed to participate in the usury because it temporally rewards more, when in fact there naturally is.

The judgment, however, is that while one is not the same priority any longer, one's priorities are necessarily devalued, due to the a competition for resources, namely, time. I see the common explanation here is to just shrug at the state of affairs. Is this the best management can do? I can see why Fortune 500 companies die now.

>Learn how the system works, and learn how to be effective within that system.

And what if the system is corrupt? Do you advocate complacency?

> but I also know for sure that new employees who try to bypass process and question the priorities of other teams, before they learn the ropes and build credibility and trust with other people, do not succeed.

And what if the people who do not succeed with such bureaucracy are actually better off for not being compliant? What is your measure of success? $?

No one wouldn’t, because can one be electro conductive in both?

Don't think of it as a copy but a continuation of you. And why do you think I can't continue to live in a new body, brain included, cloned from my proprietary genome, with a digitally transmitted cache of my proprietary self which is electromechanically diagrammed from how my self has extended into my personal body over time?

And by the way, your judgment of permanent death is ignorant of the ancient Hellenic state of mind which actually germinated the European Scientific Revolution which your scientific thoughts are predicated upon. They didn't believe in death; indeed the Christian religious concept of the resurrection is paragonal to enlightenment scientific pursuits; in that the titans of Europe believed Heaven is justified. The "random-walk" experience of human cellular life which you are inferring is actually a century's old aberration in this great ascension of man towards everlasting life.

How about taking an everlasting perspective? Ancient wisdom provides us with a healthy perspective on how irreversible all the motion of the cosmos is. And our place in it can be significant in relation to it by informing it with motion which continues on its endless flow.

Point being: create art, which obligates one to develop an inner-confidence in one's own truth. That sense of irrevocable pride can provide one with a sense of certainty in the outcome of one's fate in life. Oh, and it will make one feel good in the process. Because art requires a communal, social, outreach in order for it to create a positive response in other people's lives, their own hidden truths which have just as much significance as yours and are being impacted by a world which is otherwise imperceptible to them - namely your own. :)

So Zuckerberg was like playing the ATL Falcons with Michael Vick and their 4-6 formation on Madden online? Cool thought.

Well said! Human cultivation, such as "deep reading" - like reading Descartes or Leonard Euler - can't be sustained when one is so easily interrupted at work.

I think the OP is providing value, just at a rate which can't be calculated using 19th century industrial era compensation schedules, i.e. the 8-hour work day. OK, it actually became shorter than before, but the main point is that software is not the same as machining shoes.

There's a difference between how effective the OP is at being a team player/contributor, and a worm who tries climbing the social ladder with as little risk to his/her self which I believe you allude to. It seems to me the OP is not the ambitious type and found his place in the industrial matrix.

I think it means that when you are conducting your evaluation, you are doing more than just solving a technical problem.

To restore the peace, rather than assemble a tower of corruption for it to horridly implode, yes.

Ironically, it is exactly the 9.9% you mention that are beneficiaries of what I define "Political Markets" - operating in positions of labor which are likely controlled by legislative practices, i.e. where compliance necessarily creates pseudo-monopolies for goods and services. Compared to Jeff Bezos, who has accorded more food on the tables for people you would identically label as "abstract". How then is your moral argument sound, especially after the fact of his compounding returns of earnest efforts at wealth creation?

Morally speaking, it is nobler to be in the position of a Mr. Bezos who actually risked his life to prepare more food on the table for people than those who are in effect riding on the coattails of previous generations. They are all "obscenely rich" compared to where the average human mortal resides right now. Given all of their advantages, what do they do with it? What work do they do that will stand the test of time, let alone 25 years?

Hopefully a "moral" argument for the independent decision making of individuals and how they create honest wealth is demonstratively absurd.

You're belittling the Soviet Union's gulags when you describe 1960's racial injustices. The difference, if you can't register, is the the latter nation has the civilized means for progressing its justice through political means. It's astonishing how negligent this basic truth is when doing nation-state comparisons over the last century.