this, precisely

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.)

You just don't create X number of jobs out of thin air. Do we have a demand?

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.

The OP can't. This is the thing. Some of these folks have never set foot in academia, or would have never had made it to, say, Harvard on merit.

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?

Obligatory

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.