Leaders should not need to know every single detail (ie how this incident happens, or all the tiny process changes that are happening toward their visions). That is different than knowing nothing in detailed.
The baseline expectation in the original post also applies to the SVP: he knew enough to know that things aren't unreasonable to start with, this expectation might not apply to all companies.
An analogy that might make more sense is horizontal scalability vs. vertical scalability. A leader's ability to understand all the details of the proposal brought to them by the team inherently caps the organization's ability to scale up.
Offloading the detail onto the team allows the org to scale higher by allowing the leader to bring more teams/problems into the mix. But it also introduces the complexity of keeping those teams in close enough alignment that the overall effect is still positive.
This is by no means guaranteed to be positive, and there's a lot of details to get right for leadership in making this work. But they are different details than what each individual team was bringing to leadership.
Abstractions are helpful, in business management as much as in systems architecture.
The top-level comment that started this discussion was mentioning that a "leader" said "I don't need to know the details" but that they wanted to know what comes next. The comment I responded to claimed that there are valid reasons to need to know what comes next that don't stem from a lack of trust. I asked whether the same logic should apply to wanting to know the details (since to me it seems pretty reasonable that it should). The response said "no".
It seems like you're trying to rebut my argument by presenting my argument as being against a less strong version of the original claim rather than understanding it as being literally just a counterargument to the specific version of the claim I thought was too strong.
You, and this entire thread is missing the point. Nobody is wrong but, the point being missed is that "leaders" isn't one thing.. there are leaders at every height of the organizations hierarchy and even to the sides. As a basic example, do you mean the immediate manager? their manager? their manager? The CTO? Each operates at ever more abstract level of detail.
Currency is inherently about trust: you believe it can be traded later for goods. The mechanism with fiat is that you need to trust your state and government.
In gold, you trust that everyone is believing gold has value. And that it is commmon knowledge (in the logic sense [0])
Saying that gold has no more or less inherent monetary value than fiat currency assuming a magic wand that can change a large percentage of people's belief.
That is the entire Marx's Das Kapital. The main argument being free market will lead to concentration of power and then capitalism collaspe. He expanded on what he thought the not-capitalism could be.
Then Lenin concluded that if you will always have concentration of power and some folks doing centralized planning, it might well be the state.
And ever since that and the supposedly marginalist “revolution” people keep pretending their sliced up tautological economics is a science separated from politics because it’s convenient to those who wield capital. Truth is Marx might’ve not made the best case for the general law of profit equalization and presented the transformation of value to price in the best of mathematical terms, but I’ll be damned if the empirical evidence makes up for everything he missed.
Marx was extremely simple minded when it came to human nature. That’s the problem with all utopian ideas and all idealistic philosophers and economists: the assumption is always that humans will behave in some idealised way. While in reality greed, cruelty, corruption, treating other humans as inhuman or slaves is part of human nature. Not the only part of course, but probably the most important part when looking at the very long list of disaster we call history.
Crazy how historically wrong Das Kapital is as a book. The labor theory of value has done enormous amounts of damage to humans world-wide with its lies. Watching Marx turn himself into pretzels to explain how to calculate the "Socially necessary labor time" is entertaining if it didn't have the baggage of motivating dozens of horrible, no good revolutions, useless, damaging revolutions.
Until we have true AGI there is no value without labor. The shares of Amazon that make Bezos so rich would be worthless without the 1.5 million people working for it.
That's certainly an opinion... Quite a lot of condemnation for no real argument. I personally think surplus value and socially necessary labor time are quite straightforward, intuitive concepts. Meanwhile, I found this tidbit on Henry George's wikipedia page: "Upon Marx's death, George admitted he has not read any of his works, which were untranslated into English at the time,"
For anyone interested in reading more from Marx's side, Wage Labour And Capital by Marx is a pamphlet meant for mass distribution and not a difficult read. I've heard A People's Guide To Capitalism recommended as a high quality modernized version of the same ideas.
- Hyperscaling “we are going to serve billions of people in our applications”, which is becoming increasing unlikely as regional tech companies become more dominant than than the global one (this one is as much about geopolitics as technology)
- Operations is hard, in which case non-frontier models should be increasingly capable. Devops for small-ish deployment is one of the few cases where it is hard to clam you need deep expertise and AI can’t do it. Previously, the claim is that you need people specialized in ops, which is expensive. Now…
My prediction is that not just cloud LLM, but cloud business general will have to change. Not yet in the next 5 years, but probably 8-20 years-ish
I don’t disagree but saying “cloud will change in the next 8-20y-ish” is a bit of a non-argument, you’re not really stating any thesis to speak of; Change is a given over that time frame.
I’m not so sure I agree, given the overwhelming concentration of capital and regulatory capture they have, I just don’t see them going anywhere; becoming more niche rather than even more of a standard is “going away” to a certain extent as far as I can see.
Professoe Robert Pape (University of Chicago) has 2 substacks where he have been discussing the exactly topic heavily, as well as having webinar/ live discussiok with some heavy hitters about the topic. Unfortunately both of the substacks are both subscription-only
I would rather not paraphrasing or rewrite in my interpretation too much, as the topic is difficult enough as-is. But the short version is that the mainstream analysis of "worst case" is nowhere near his level of worst-case scenario and that the US has no control of the situations any more (the US can still control its actions, but Iran is already emboldened enough to take actions on its own strategic plan). The worst-case scenario has Iran with nuke as the baseline, and Iran also growing to be the dominant regional power in Middle East, on-par with Russian in the peak strength in 2010s.
The baseline expectation in the original post also applies to the SVP: he knew enough to know that things aren't unreasonable to start with, this expectation might not apply to all companies.