It's a smart strategy IF you don't mind of your most competent employees leave first. At Facebook with its current strategy they might be ok with that.

Most of their good employees left a while ago anyway.

All that and you still can't help bragging about how many people you've managed.

This is not news that matters. Normally I don't complain, but...

That's why you're not climbing the corporate ladder. Get more people under you ASAP. Learn to fight off your rivals. Or stay down.

Wrong. Managers are always scheming to get as many people below them as possible. Claiming savings is an effective short-term strategy that only works in specific circumstances, and it only works as a strategy when it results in more people below you on the org tree.

So true. Same with programming languages, too. Good engineers solve problems in the constraints they are given.

Why do you think their intent is to move faster?

If managers can slow you down, then they need to hire more people below them. That is a promotion for the manager.

Managers are actively trying to slow you down.

They don't sell to upper level management, they sell to second tier management.

If you're second level, you need to make "positive changes" in the company to climb the ladder, but you aren't smart enough to think of those changes yourself. Gartner sells the plan to second level managers, who sell it to top level in hopes of getting promoted.

Gartner, Forrester, etc are in the "help second tier managers get promoted" business.

Normally people become managers with zero training in management. It's not a high skill position.

If you want to manage, then this book will quickly get you into the 98th percentile of managers. Only 224 pages.

If you want to climb the corporate ladder, that is the difficult side of management. I don't know any good books about that.

I am the specific target audience for these drives.

And ... they are a TERRIBLE idea.

Assume PCIex4 v5.0 for the interface. That's a theoretical 15.75GB/sec. To read this drive sequentially would take 4.25 hours.

This is so slow it's absolutely useless for AI. Assume for a moment I loaded 8 of these into a 1u chassis. 800Gb XDR InfiniBand would be too slow, a double link would work. But you would be better off building half-U trays with four drives and an 800Gb link.

That said, let's say you had half a rack of that. That would be 48x245TB or about 12PB. And remember this is performance storage, not reliable storage. Everything here should be treated as entirely volatile... it's just cheap/slow RAM, it's not bad.

I think overall, I would architect a similar system on 64TB sleds because with the exception of rack space and power (and the drives use no power next to GPUs), 64TB drives destroy 245TB drives in every way.

Once we hit PCIe v9.0 or so and 4Tb Ethernet or InfiniBand, then 245TB will start making sense.

If Micron wanted a serious product, they would have dropped U.2 in favor of Ethernet or InfiniBand.

Managers are largely judged based on how many people they've managed. The larger the number of people, the better. Thus their entire incentive structure is based on hiring new people below them, whether those people are useful or not.

It's the current meta for CxO suite: the idea is there are too many middle level managers. They don't have enough work so they spend their time playing office politics and in useless meetings.

The idea is to have bigger teams and fewer managers. Maybe instead of team sizes 4-6 move to team sizes 12-15.

Personally I think the problem isn't team size, it's a matter of having people who's entire job is to manage. If managers spend 50% (or some reasonable percentage) of their time doing practical work (ie, work that is not managing), then they are working alongside their teams and the problems will go away.

Ageism is illegal. But that isn't stopping Fidelity from ditching the senior level staff to replace them with a bunch of greenies.

I think maybe you are joking. But in any case, I will offer some clarity:

There are rival interpretations that equally account for the experimental data, and some of them include randomness while others are purely deterministic.

For example, the Copenhagen interpretation includes randomness in the vector state collapse (the moment when a particle is "measured" by some interaction with another). Whereas pilot wave theory posits the existence of a zero-volume particle that had a specific position prior to this interaction (giving determinism back). These models differ in other ways of course, but the math DOES work and it covers the experimental data.

So the bottom line is that "quantum mechanics" does not automatically tell us whether or not the universe is deterministic at the "bottom layer." Plenty of scientists have all picked their favorite interpretation, but there is as of yet no experimental data that definitively eliminates the popular rival interpretations.