Clearly, you have never worked for a good manager. I'm sorry for you. Good managers do exist. As a manager myself
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.
I suspect is from sheer ignorance rather than any design to get more workers underneath them.
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.
...modems (C series)
There would be some perverse irony if Apple ended up manufacturing cellular baseband hardware with designs from the cellular modem team that they bought from Intel, and did so using Intel's foundries.
In the end- good engineers with sufficient experience and support will get stuff working with any methodology. Bad ones or ones insufficiently supported will fail with any methodology.
So true. Same with programming languages, too. Good engineers solve problems in the constraints they are given.
They say that is the intent, but they have zero evidence that the reorganization will in fact lead to "moving faster."
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.
Business consulting firms - Gartner, Forrester, and such need a new "silver bullet" program, strategy, plan,.... to sell to upper management.
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.
The problem with that is the skills needed to manage and the skills needed to do real work (let's take programming as an example) are pretty distinct.
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.
Was there a point to that?
Hmmm. Unlike a totally serious AC like you.
No, that is just another misrepresentation of yours.
Yet you don't bother explaining how I am supposedly misrepresenting you. You have never actually said what was supposedly creatively snipped by me to change the meaning of what you wrote and how it does so.
In other words you feel free to snip out something that may contain context or meaning contrary to your reimagining of the conversation.
Sigh. And around and around we go. Once gain, the interpretations and claims I make are not the same s the actual quote. I did not alter the quote in any way that removed context or meaning. My interpretation does not have to agree with you. I honestly represented what you actually wrote.
Again, you misrepresent. Party A can provide their personal opinions to B. Party A can provide their personal opinions to C. That's two of three rolls of Party A
If party A is the council and B is the President, and C is Congress, how can what you are saying there be consistent with your original claim that the board is "there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress" and that the board "...once the President make's [sic] the call..." is "obligated to help with that direction."
You don't seem to be able to keep what you are even claiming straight, so we keep going around and around pointlessly. Your original claim was essentially that the board should advise the President but that, once the President had made a decision, the board would then need to adjust their advice to Congress based on the President's direction. Now are you reversing that and saying I was right all along?
Now on two the 3rd that you keep omitting, setting policy.
I do not keep omitting it, you're just flat out playing pretend at this point.
For the rest of that, you seem to be implying that the board directly proposes a budget to Congress? This is a new claim. You know that's not how it works, right?
In other words, you're a coward and an idiot.
You prove my point. You don't understand how Congress granting an entity the authority to determine policy works. You seem to somehow conflate it with budgetary spending. These are two very different things that Congress does. If the authority is to be limited, Congress needs to say so. Sunset provisions and such
I am not conflating it with budgetary spending. Leeway in how to spend money is simply one of the pieces of authority that Congress can delegate. As for your claim that, if the authority is to be limited, Congress seems to say so, do you think that Congress has to say so before the fact? They are totally empowered to take back any of their own authority they have delegated in the past because delegation does not mean that you give up authority. That's why it is called delegation and not a surrender or gift.
You reading comprehension fails. That is what I said: "There is no inherent end date unless the legislation states one. Without a stated end date Congress may or may not produce new legislation that replaces the original."
I don't think I'm the one with the reading comprehension issues if we've gotten this far down the thread and you're just getting here now.
Good faith is one thing, attempting to usurp executive authority is something else entirely. As the Supreme Court ruled.
This is quite obviously actually a case of the executive trying to usurp legislative authority. The widely disputed reasoning in a couple of recent Supreme Court cases from the shadow docket do not change that.
Congress gets a say in funding, not in the direction of the work product of the execu
Quite simply not true. The function of the Executive is to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. The direction of the work product of the Executive is decided by Congress. The role of the executive is supposed to be to handle the practical aspects of heading in that direction.
As an example, take Kennedy's speech on how the US had to go to the moon. In it, he explicitly said:
"Let it be clear—and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make—let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action."
So, the President did ask Congress for a direction, and Congress approved it. But the direction of the work product of the executive - in that case, the Apollo program - was absolutely something that Congress not only had a say in, but had absolute control over. If they had voted not to go to the moon, the direction of the executive's work product would have been something else.
Just more abject nonsense from you. You make claims, but can't back them up in the slightest.
There was never any credible reason to doubt it nor any motive for lying in the first place. A subset of it was codified but definitely not all of it.
There were plenty of very credible reasons to doubt it and lots of motive for lying in the first place. I admit that maybe I am not giving teenage script kiddies who call themselves things like "Big Balls" and are affiliated with cybercrime groups and white supremacist organizations the benefit of the doubt. Must be my personal biases against complete unqualified people doing professional work.
"The only way you wouldn't have a negative view of them would be if you've completely disconnected from society"
That's a nice quote. Where did it come from?
The only people with a negative view of Musk are left wingers and they are a shrinking minority despite the sad echo-chamber that has grown here on Slashdot.
While it is true that, if you divide things up by political party affiliation, 95% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of him, since 56% of the overall population has an unfavorable view of him and only 33% have a favorable view, it's clearly not just left wingers who don't like the guy. Considering that there is no other recorded incident in either Rebuplican or Democrat administrations of one cabinet member giving another cabinet member a black eye in recorded history other than the black eye that Musk originally claimed came from his toddler son, but turned out to be from Bessent, it does appear that there are Republicans who don't like the guy either. As it turns out, even outside of politics, a lot of people who end up around Musk, but are not forced into some sort of position of subservience to him end up really disliking him or at least having a hard time finding a way to like him.
Regarding Musk:
"...the man who has lost his mind..." "train wreck" "completely off the rails" --Donald Trump
"The principles of DOGE were very popular... Elon was not" --Scott Bessent
"Pathetic man-child" --Vivian Musk, one of his children.
"Spoilt Child" -- Errol Musk, his father. Of course Musk has said his father has done "almost every evil thing you can possibly think of"
"his gift is not empathy" --Kimball Musk, his brother
"terrified of his own cousin" is the way that a Twitter executive described James Musk, a cousin after finding him apparently sobbing.
"Jekyll-and-Hyde" -- Tosca Musk, his sister, describing his personality.
"Odd, odd Duck" -- Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff.
"I have been in the same room with Elon, and he always tries to be funny. And he's not funny. Like, at all." most irritating person I've ever had to deal with." -- Anonymous senior officials
"...holding the children hostage..." -- Grimes, mother of some of his children.
All of the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't take a "sad echo chamber" to find Musk unlikable, it just takes being around him.
"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani
