Harvard did.
As I said, citations needed. Moreover, given you opted to mention Harvard, citations needed to demonstrate that whatever you alleged happened in Harvard (if it did) is also applicable across the other entities you intend to accuse.
DEI is how mediocre people get jobs and college places.
Pete Hegseth stares at you in Moron-lingo. Stop projecting.
What is nonsensical and dishonest is hiring people based on their race or sex, you racist, sexist pigs.
No one does. That's just bs mediocre people parrot to themselves.
Not to mention the millions spent on DEI hiring of marginal people based only on demographics.
Citations needed.
If you talk to intel and former intel employees I'd argue the real rot is the dog-eat-dog internal company culture.
And that was exactly Motorola's undoing, also.
OK, it could be argued the government is the problem in the first place, since laws are a big part of why production here is economically nonviable.
Well, of course. Environmental and anti-trust regulation and workers' protection laws, and all that stuff gets in the way... and let us ignore the cost of living (which is a much larger reason why it is not economically viable to create some stuff without subsidies.)
You can't adapt to complete total economic collapses every 5 to 10 years
Except we don't have total economic collapse every 5 to 10 years. Think carefully what you think "total economic collapse" means.
I've been through downturns (the dot-com, the great recession and contract freezes during the 2013 government shutdown.) But none of them were total collapse.
PS. We will all experience an economic shit show once in our lives, and yes, we can adapt. And if we are wise, we can learn to prepare (and perhaps even better, elect politicians that work with the private sector to prevent such things from hammering the little guys.)
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to focus more on trade/vocational education. But this is not a zero-sum game. All jobs, and all forms of education are complimentary so long as they match demand.
But they sure know about "indoctrination in collage(sic)".
I spent 10 years in college, and I can only count 2 instructors that were into that kind of behavior (one from the left, and one from the right.)
Every other professor I had was simply trying to do their job. A few sucked, some had terrible personalities, but hey, we are all human. Everybody else did their job, and I thank them for it. Some of them became my mentors who helped me get through my education. Some were even counselors that got me through some dark moments (because college is challenging, specially in STEM fields.)
So I ask, just like you, what indoctrination are these fools talking about?
These things shouldn't be on the internet.
It depends. There's nothing wrong with these industrial devices pushing warnings or alarms to some "central" aggregator (the same way a security alarm signals ADT for an intrusion or fire.)
So, egress signals are ok. The problem is ingress - they can't be wide open. And updates must be roll-back'able. I've worked with platforms that have partitioned hardware to hold multiple firmware/app-ware to allow a transparent rollback if an upgrade fails.
There is a technical and business case to have these systems connected to the Internet. But those cases must demand and design security upfront, assume everything is hostile, expose the minimum required and tighten that shit down.
Why do managers have to "defend" their reports?
Because that's the only way to ensure the reports are sufficiently accurate. And this is not limited to management/team reports. It is a necessary step to ensure a value judgment, measure, assessment or proposition is reasonable and quantifiable.
To "defend" is to explain, hopefully with quantifiable evidence. You give a report, you defend your findings. You submit a code for review, you defend and explain your coding decisions. You leave a comment or critique on a report or code review, you need to explain it why the comment or critique is valid, etc.
Without a defense or refutal, we are left with making shit up uncontested.
There used to be a lot of software engineers (people on the software engineer job ladder, as opposed to the engineering manager job ladder) who had 2-3 people reporting to them and were considered TLMs.
I didn't know about this in google... and that sounds truly inefficient. A tech lead (or staff or principal engineer or scientist above them) is not supposed to be a front-line manager.
And a front-line manager is not supposed to be acting as a tech lead (at least not most of the time.)
A somewhat imperfect way of seeing this is that a tech/staff/principal lead/engineer or scientist acts like a corporal or sergeant whereas a front-line manager acts like an LT or captain. Leads are in charge of giving technical direction and mentoring.
They are operational. Managers (starting with front-line managers) are in charge of providing the general direction to meet the department, project or company's objectives, and ensure the engineers and tech leads under them are equipped to do the job.
To mix both roles, in particular when there aren't that many people to lead or manage, that's just a recipe for inefficiency. In small companies, startups or with skunkworks, this is both unavoidable and sometimes desired.
But if that's the general pattern across the board in a large company, that's just organizational cancer IMO.
No, because it only deals with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which amounts to about 10% of plastic waste.
Still better to have that 10% going to a landfill. To get to 100%, or even 50%, you gotta start somewhere. Crazy, I know.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
