If you could double the active lifespan of a (sane, healthy) individual, you'd get twice the amount of work for the same amount of high-school and college man-years. It's simple economy of scale.
New ideas are usually adopted once the old people with the old ideas dies . Classic example is the theory of relativity. There were brilliant physicist of their time who went to their graves refuting Einstein's theory because they had invested too much of their time and effort in the status quo. Furthermore, acceptance of the theory of relativity would have meant their work was invalid.
What was surprising to me was the fact that something written in the 60's about software development is still very relevant today.
The engineers who worked on the IBM System/360 OS discovered software engineering through pure trial and error.
One of the classic insights from the book that I've seen companies (i.e. Microsoft) violate over and over is Brooke's Law. Brooke's law states that "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." It is incredible how we reinvent the wheel everyday instead of taking time learn the from the trials and mistakes of others.
Another surprising insight to me at the time was the following. Although the engineers were working on a very technical problem, the biggest challenges they had to overcome were social/people challenges.
“Our conclusion is there is a small but definite chance that RSA and classic Diffie-Hellman will not be usable for encryption purposes in four to five years,” said Stamos
Laymen terms: There is a small, but non-zero probability that an asteroid will collide into the earth and destroy civilization in the next 4 or 5 years
My thought: There is a non-zero probability of INSERT_UNLIKELY_EVENT happening in the next 4 or 5 years. Should we panic? Nah. That is called life... There are no guarantees. If we worried about unlikely events happening...we'd be in a state of paranoia, fear, and constant worry of the next catastrophe. Oh wait....wrong thread.
Take fire insurance for example. A fire that happens in say Miami, FL is most likely not going to increase the risk of a fire occurring in Seattle, WA. Therefore a fire insurance company can make sure that the clients they select are geographically distributed to distribute the risk AND minimize the risk correlation.
In contrast, Cyber Insurance is somewhat unique from typical insurance because there is an inherent correlated risk that you run into regardless of how and where you choose your clients. Most clients run the same OS (Windows) and use the same software and AV packages. Therefore, a data breach that occurs with one client can mean other clients can be at immediate risk to also have a data breach
So what can happen is that a cyber insurance company can end up needing to pay out more money than they collect because breaches can happen concurrently or consecutively.
This random system then prevents people from spending all their time scheming to set up the ideal circumstances where all the other candidates have been pushed under a bus. Also then they don't owe any favors for their job.
Even with that method....you would have the same problem. This is because of how a "qualified" candidate will most likely be defined. The "qualified" candidates will be the ones that are the most adept at politicking (i.e. backstabbing) and marketing (i.e. look at all the amazing things I do for company Z) themselves.
So you'd have a random pool of people who were all scheming and calculating there way to the top.
The advantage of synching and sharing with random peers is increased bandwidth and more redundancy in case one or more of your devices are not working or have limited network connectivity.
Imagine you are an executive at a company that makes a gadget that users interact with. The user pays for the gadget along with the interactive services that the gadget provides.
Lets also suppose that the gadget is very popular and has a large user base. Being a profit-seeking individual, you as an executive come up with the genius idea of integrating ads into the gadget.
You demonstrate that by introducing ads you can immediately impact the bottom line in a positive manner (at least in the short term). Since most businesses are short-term oriented, everyone is excited. Your genius idea is implemented and you get a bonus that is commensurate with the money your idea brings in.
All the executives line their pocket and live happily ever after. As far as the consumers who were buying your gadget, if they eventually stop buying/using your gadget, so what. You got yours (golden parachute opens).....The end.
In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself.
Unions can be a victim of the Iron law. The people who put their energy into furthering the goals of the union are almost always politically out-muscled and displaced by the people who preserve the union itself. So at the end, only those who preserve the union are left.
Imagine person A is lobbying for things that will actually make a difference for fellow workers. While Person A is lobbying, person B is figuring out how get the union to grow and get stronger. Person B is making political connections and becoming more powerful while person A is in the trenches fighting for the workers causes. Its no surprise that it is Person B that ends up rising to the top.
So at the end of the day, unions can be a double edged sword. They have the potential to make meaningful changes, but as they grow in size, there is a potential to begin focusing on doing things that keep the union in existence/power instead of doing what is best for the workers.
Keep in mind there can be a significant gap between when something happens, it is noticed, and when it is "officially" reported by the company.
So, as usual, your skills are worth precisely dick. It's about whoever's vagina you were lucky enough to pop out of.
Warren Buffet refers to it as the "Ovarian Lottery"
I am not sure there is a company where transition from engineer lead to financial lead produced any benefit to the products. And bad products push companies in death spiral.
What about the Microsoft transition from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer or Apple and its transition to John Sculley? Oh wait, bad examples.