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.

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.

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.

Still better to have that 10% going to a landfill. To get to 100%, or even 50%, you gotta start somewhere. Crazy, I know.

And he's an adjudicated r-pist, and stands accused by 27 different women. So what's your point?

This. 100%. I wouldn't mind the US government having vested interest over broad indexes or ETFs covering sectors (thought that could also be a can of worms), but this is waaaaay too interventionist and fascistic for my liking.

This is not giving Intel an uncompetitive advantage over current and future competitors.

Well, it is indeed naive. Tragically, communist ideology truly believed that was an achievable and inevitable end goal, tragically to the point of being the end of millions of lives in the process.

Not quite. Communism and Socialism are part of several spectra regarding social ownership of the means of production, management or disposition of resources. Different flavors of socialism have aims that are gradual, and have no problem integrating with capitalism so long as social objectives are achieved.

The different flavors Communism, oth, have tended to call for more radical transformation that require a monopoly on political systems and the means of production (which have always led to horrific results.)

Obviously, this is a simplification. Additionally, "Socialism" also tends to denote a series of movements that aim to address social problems rooted in inequality (which a lot of people have made the mistake to equate with "poverty", "destitution" and/or "oppression", which is taxonomically not correct.)

And a lot of the rights we have today in capitalist nations come from both liberal (in the historic sense of the word) and socialist thought processes. Women's voting rights, unions, overtime pay, child labor laws, they are all part of our "capitalist" nature (at least in 1st world developed societies.)

Sadly, the political lingo in the Land of the Free (to exist without dental care), terms like "liberal", "socialist" or "conservative" don't mean shit anymore. They are either avatars of shit we think we like, or shit we think we hate. Intelligent conversation is nearly impossible.

The thing is, those layoffs were planned for a while to reduce cost and increase profit. It's hard to tell if the layoffs are simply vampiric bizness shenanigans to reduce cost by any means and make the numbers look better for the next quarter, or if the layoffs are indeed strategic and necessary.

There's a good chance that layoffs were going to happen no matter what, but the number of people getting the axe was going to be inversely proportional to the revenue or profit.

It does suck to get canned (been there, done that, not fun at all.) But sometimes, layoffs need to happen, and it's hard to tell if this is a case of Cisco needing to reduce headcount or if it's just pointy-hairy bosses trying to make soylent green.

... by scientists, not by Mo McBubba the HS-grad regurgitating alt-facts from some yt channel.

If this were true, we wouldn't have millions of dissatisfied young and middle-aged men feeling left behind and without dignified work.

Also, we don't need ditch diggers, that's what machinery is for. And chefs and car washers depend on customers with enough disposable income to create a sufficient demand of their services to support all those men performing those services. Which is why we need well-paid white and pink collar workers.

Well-paid white and pink collar workers provide the real trickle-down, since their discretionary spending support between 5 and 7 jobs, per capita.

We do not have too many college graduates. Anyone who says this needs to provide some sources to support that claim.

We can have an argument that we have too many for specific fields, but we are in a post-industrial service/knowledge economy that depends on knowledge workers.

With that said, I do not believe every person needs to go to college. There are trades that pay very well: welding for instance. We rarely see a welder, mechanic, HVAC specialist, electrician or plumber struggling to make ends meet, do we?

So, we need to create paths for people, regardless of gender, to get into specialized trades, which is what we need. As for the HS grad mentioned in the article, $15/hr is starving money depending on location. It might be fine for a young kid, but man, you better find a way to increase that by 50% very soon. $15/hr just doesn't cut as they get older.

Without making any judgements: If I were confident in my skills but don't like the company, but I'm confident to find a job with a comparable compensation package, I'd take the 16-week pay (4 months tend to be enough to find a job if we are aggressive about it.)

However, if I were not confident, I'd stick around and try to get through the PIP... while aggressively looking for another job and jump ship as soon as possible.

Either way, if I were to be put in that position, it would be a sign to bail out. It would just be a matter of how to carve an exit strategy.

The majority of the people have zero use to know how to build a house. We aren't teaching kids to be software engineers, but just to play and learn how to do loops and little programs, for them to explore and see if they like it. Source: me, a parent.

We can say the same about teaching kids how to paint or play an instrument. The point of K12 education is not to teach specific skills, but to expose kids to a variety of topics, and to learn to socialize and work with others.

And coding is not an specialist skill. My kids learned enough coding to understand control statements and how computers work, in 4th grade I believe. I doubt they remember all they learned, but they, like their peers, are very computer-skilled, no doubt in great part by their early introduction of coding.

We are teaching kids what coding looks like. We aren't asking them to develop a compiler or a distributed e-commerce site. C'mon. The basics of coding are not a specialist skill. It's like saying basic algebra is an specialist skill.

Can you read? Can you write? Can you do enough mathematics to plan a budget, understand compound interest or calculate how much paint you need to cover a wall? Can you look at a work-related report and extract information pertinent to your tasks? Did you acquire some understanding of arts that gives you some enjoyment, which is necessary to have a balanced life in this busy world of ours?

Seems to me you are failing to appreciate what public education gave you. Unless you learned all that on your own, in which case, good for you.