If it's a toss-up between a de-facto Chinese takeover or a de-facto Israeli takeover, then the question is not what the resignation is trying to distract from, the question is why a vital strategic manufacturer is being taken over by a foreign power at all.

(Obviously, there's good reasons for a foreign power to want to have absolute leverage over how US businesses work. Whether those foreign powers are "hostile" or "benign" is irrelevant there and so of absolutely no consequence to the discussion. What matters is that the US should not place critical industries, on which essentially all other parts of their economy have become utterly dependent, in the hands of anyone not subject to US scrutiny or US law. As it stands, I dislike how corporations work, boards have accountability to nobody outside themselves and majority shareholders - which are also usually themselves. That's not an effective system.)

I'd certainly investigate the entire corporation. If the guy is abusing his position of authority (which means that any "consent" given is a fiction) and the employees actively support this, then there's a good chance that the behaviour is rampant in the company.

There is, however, a flip-side. He's undoubtedly led the company to produce some superb products and has pushed them in a well-identified direction. Far more so than virtually any other US corporation. There's very obviously something about his personality and mindset that is actually wanted to have a successful business, and this something is lacking within much of the western business community.

Basically, much of the western world is stuck in Harvard MBA Land, and companies operating under such principles invariably collapse from complete incompetence. They're popular because those with MBAs are usually brash, arrogant, controlling, dominant, and abusive - typical sociopathic traits - and sociopaths in the boardroom tend to be very good at producing stable management structures and very high stock returns. Just not successful busineses. But who cares, if you get rich?

This does not mean we need more sex offenders or Chinese spies running US megacorps. It means we need to find out exactly what in his attitude allowed him to identify successful patterns, we have no reason to want or desire any other aspects of the guy.

Should we email Microsoft and advise them on how to install Linux and FreeBSD on their servers?

This is some weird version of the thundering herd problem where everything schedules at even time values. They could still do checks every 60 seconds but add a little jitter in when it is scheduled to prevent exactly this kind of silliness. add a random value between -5 and 5 seconds to the scheduled time after each cycle and watch the blips disappear.

Manuals are great if you know the API you want to call and need to know the details. They aren't good if you don't know the API, or even if one exists. Or if the problem you're debugging is more complex than just "passed the wrong parameter to this function".

Closer to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tradition. All they need are the words "Don't Panic" on the front cover.

If it doesn't, it has no real value.

Almost nothing on Wikipedia is true, but all of it is "verifiable" in that there's at least one published source making the claim. Even if 99.9% of all other sources say the opposite.

(The Haka is not, for example, a war chant. Which is attested to, but because it's claimed to be online, it is "verifiable".)

The number of errors is huge, the number of "official editors" who know anything about the subject is extremely small, and this has always been the case. This is why nobody reputable cites Wikipedia. Wikipedia is where you go to find out what is potentially interesting, but you ALWAYS obtain the facts from elsewhere, if you've any sense.

I'm sure I'll get torn apart for this, but there are many cases where the AI mode does a significantly better job of searching, and is much more capable. Recent example:

Every week my son's school sends an email with a list of colleges visiting along with dates and times. My son wants to find schools with a degree in XYZ, which is a bit specialized. I type "Which of these schools have a degree in XYZ?" then hit paste. The AI parses the email (which is formatted for a human and includes irrelevant information about the visit), then produces a bulleted list, with links to the page for that specific degree. That would have taken me 10+ searches. And since each school calls the degree something slightly different, it would take even more.

Your best engineers will be AuDHD, and AuDHD folk don't do well in these sorts of synthetic tests.

I can code in 20+ languages for over 12 different OS', write code that's good enough for CERN to run for particle accelerator data collection for a decade, have accelerated systems by an order of magnitude by understanding the poem space better than their previous engineers, but I am abysmal at exam style settings.

The software industry is riddled with SEs who write abysmal code but can pass a coding test easily. They're the folk that you have always needed to reject but didn't because they ticked a box.

We're running a business here. We need real software, not toys created as a fun weekend experiment with a chatbot or burning money to run an agent and get 50% (or more likely 5%) of the way there.

This helium crisis is nothing new. It's now 20 years since I wrote a column titled The looming helium crisis and little has changed.

The real world is more complicated than that. For example, we still have a Windows 7 machine in my office. It has some very expensive but still very useful software locked to it that has no direct replacement available on either Linux or Windows 11. Obviously we have to be careful about security and controlling access to a legacy OS like that.

Blunt statements about "forcing an upgrade" are worthless in this kind of situation. Chances are anyone who is still using a system like that has a good reason for it, at least if it's in use professionally. We buy these assets because they solve problems. Those problems might or might not have a useful and cost-effective solution available on a different platform. If there is no modern solution available and the original still works, your statement that "the old ways are obsolete" is by definition false.

What you do need to do is rationally assess the risks and the threats you face and provide other ways of mitigating the risks and protecting against the threats if you can't rely on, for example, a legacy OS that no longer gets security updates to be secure by itself. But then ideally you shouldn't be relying on any single device or piece of software being secure as your only line of defence anyway, and assuming you already have some degree of defence in depth, accommodating unusual requirements is more a redistribution of security responsibilities than a fundamental change of approach.

Yes, it does look like we broadly agree here.

I suppose the main thing I'd have said very differently is the terminology, in that I wouldn't regard the kind of incompetent senior as a senior in the first place. But then I'm pretty old school about this: to me, a junior developer needs quite close supervision to produce useful results, a regular/mid developer can perform routine tasks with minimal supervision but might need more help with larger or more complex tasks, while a senior is someone you can give more or less any task on your project to and they'll figure it out, and senior is also the level of someone who would be capable of supervising and training a junior.

We've had a wave of people, particularly since the tech boom during COVID, who have obviously been over-promoted due to the employee's market and title inflation. They might now have titles like "senior" or even "lead" or "staff", but they don't have the skills and experience to operate successfully at those levels. I agree the acceleration of everything due to increasing AI use tends to show these people up and I agree that a good mid-level developer using AI might well outperform them. But then I suspect in reality a good mid-level developer was probably outperforming them before AI as well, it just wasn't so obvious.