I have proof that Intel was intentionally not hiring the best in the field.
This is one variable among many. When was the critical design flaw introduced? Who introduced it? Was intels hiring practices changed at that point? Did the hiring practice affect the hiring of employees at the department that introduced the design flaw? Did intel's change adversely affect quality assurance and testing done there? By how much?
You don't have any evidence that it did. You're making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.
The said, intel has stated that processors that were created from 1995 onwards may be susceptible to spectre and meltdown. The hiring quotas that we see today didn't exist in 1995 so it's quite safe to say that hiring quotas weren't responsible for the design flaws that led to spectre and meltdown.
I worked for a major, major US bank that has 100s of thousands of employees. The way the company worked was a complete shitshow. I was a software developer there and lets say my peek productivity is 100 units, that company got at most 1 out of me. I was sitting around doing nothing most of the time. I was bored out of my mind, I wanted work. I left after a while because I was bored. The company is probably still a complete shitshow, the stock is up 600% in the last 7 years.
How efficient your employees are, especially in a large corporation, is important, but not that important. Certainly not a "sell signal".
The reality is, women are graduating from college at a higher rate than men. Women will dominate corporations going forward, and policies that increase their participation is probably more important for the long term success of those corporations than say a cookie cutter software developer that comes dime-a-dozen from any Eastern European or Asian country.
begging for a competitor to take their market share
They cannot, due to size of the company.
Maybe the companies stock would have risen by 1200% if they had been operating better?
No doubt, 600% is still pretty good for most investors. It beat SP500 by a lot. Selling that company just because "feminism", would be stupid, plus, news flash: feminism aint new. You cannot find a company in SP500 that doesn't have "feminism entering the company".
I mean come on do you really think that stock prices are completely random and there isn't underlying economic forces that drive them?
No, its not random. They are obviously doing the right thing. Hiring talented people, keeping them and employee productivity is not one of things they do good however. Which is my point: employee productivity is not as important as you make it out to be (at least for large corporations, like IBM).
purposely hiring less qualified people for purely political reasons
Pink haired, lazy, single mom in the ops department of IBM can do 100 mundane tasks a day whereas a white man with great work ethic can do 110 mundane tasks a day. Do you think IBM will fail in the long run because they hired the single mom over the dude? I don't.
[–]CaptSnap 101 points102 points103 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 38 points39 points40 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]geniice -26 points-25 points-24 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CaptSnap 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]geniice -14 points-13 points-12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FrogTrainer 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]geniice -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]menshouldhaverights 93 points94 points95 points (60 children) | Copy Link
[–]desderon 30 points31 points32 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]furchfur 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DeepScan 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]KBTKOC 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 16 points17 points18 points (40 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[+]mybloodcansing3 points [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link
Do you have proof that the employees at intel that designed the chips were not the best in the field?
[–]bufedad 9 points10 points11 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]mybloodcansing2 points [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link
This is one variable among many. When was the critical design flaw introduced? Who introduced it? Was intels hiring practices changed at that point? Did the hiring practice affect the hiring of employees at the department that introduced the design flaw? Did intel's change adversely affect quality assurance and testing done there? By how much?
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[+]tessarect4 points [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link
You don't have any evidence that it did. You're making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.
The said, intel has stated that processors that were created from 1995 onwards may be susceptible to spectre and meltdown. The hiring quotas that we see today didn't exist in 1995 so it's quite safe to say that hiring quotas weren't responsible for the design flaws that led to spectre and meltdown.
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]polished_iconoclast 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]mybloodcansing3 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
That's dumb.
I worked for a major, major US bank that has 100s of thousands of employees. The way the company worked was a complete shitshow. I was a software developer there and lets say my peek productivity is 100 units, that company got at most 1 out of me. I was sitting around doing nothing most of the time. I was bored out of my mind, I wanted work. I left after a while because I was bored. The company is probably still a complete shitshow, the stock is up 600% in the last 7 years.
How efficient your employees are, especially in a large corporation, is important, but not that important. Certainly not a "sell signal".
The reality is, women are graduating from college at a higher rate than men. Women will dominate corporations going forward, and policies that increase their participation is probably more important for the long term success of those corporations than say a cookie cutter software developer that comes dime-a-dozen from any Eastern European or Asian country.
[–]menshouldhaverights 15 points16 points17 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]mybloodcansing-1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
They cannot, due to size of the company.
No doubt, 600% is still pretty good for most investors. It beat SP500 by a lot. Selling that company just because "feminism", would be stupid, plus, news flash: feminism aint new. You cannot find a company in SP500 that doesn't have "feminism entering the company".
No, its not random. They are obviously doing the right thing. Hiring talented people, keeping them and employee productivity is not one of things they do good however. Which is my point: employee productivity is not as important as you make it out to be (at least for large corporations, like IBM).
Pink haired, lazy, single mom in the ops department of IBM can do 100 mundane tasks a day whereas a white man with great work ethic can do 110 mundane tasks a day. Do you think IBM will fail in the long run because they hired the single mom over the dude? I don't.
[–]atximport 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Themightysavage 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Splatriarchy 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]andejoh 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link