I hope these people form a group to develop software that directly competes with Microsoft or even make it free now that you have extra time. It'll keep your skills up and good for the resume.
Including people they want to keep? What if all the people they wanted to keep accepted while those they didn't want to keep stayed? Certainly makes no sense.
I imagine they don't extend the offer to specific people they want to keep.
I'm still not sure what the advantage to the company of an offer like this is versus layoffs where management gets to choose who leaves, unless they feel the "loyalty test" of deciding to stay is worth more than their own evaluation of employee performance.
1. Some C-suite asshole wants headcount in your division reduced by, say, 5% next year. He has zero visibility into anyone's performance, or any of the projects anyone is actually working on.
2. His subordinate directors could do random, or targeted layoffs to hit that 5%, but this ruins morale for everyone who survives, and is rather awful for those that don't.
3. ...Or, they could make this offer, let people leave on their own, try to convince any stars who want to take it to stay, don't do any backfill. Then, hopefully, between the voluntary layoffs and no backfill, you might hit that 5% reduction, and not have to do involuntary layoffs. (Or if you do, they would be much smaller.)
4. This is less disruptive for teams and managers, because with voluntary layoffs, they have time to plan for these people leaving, instead of showing up to work on Thursday, and being told that 5 people on their team were given the pink slip this morning.
5. This is also, obviously, less disruptive for employees who take the offer (as they can control their exit, and get a payout), and less disruptive for anyone who doesn't take the offer (lower odds of showing up to work on Thursday, and getting a pink slip).
> What if all the people they wanted to keep accepted while those they didn't want to keep stayed
That's not an outcome they'd like, but it's an outcome they have to accept, in order to not piss off everyone else.
1. For anyone they want to keep who takes them up on the offer, they always have a chance to try to convince those people to not take the buyout offer.
2. If you make the buyout offer conditional to particular individuals, it will sow resentment and division.
It's generally better for the employees and the employer to do this kind of blanket buyout. If they voluntarily hit the reduction targets, nobody needs to be laid off. If they don't, the layoffs will be there, but smaller. If the 'wrong' people want the buyout, there's still a chance to convince them to stay. If they don't want to stay after the convincing, it's probably best for them to go on their way.
Just compile for your specific hardware sort of like what Gentoo does. I don't want you continuously running a model - sort of defeats the purpose of performance gains.
For claims of up to "2x" it certainly can do, but depending on the application and hardware, just like this.
It's not clear to me from the article if the comparison is with locally compiled binaries, that would be the fair comparison.
I would expect this to be better all rounder in theory, but it would be interesting to see what the difference is from a locally compiled baseline, and therefore if the complexity, obscurity and cost is worth it (again probably application and hardware dependant question).
"My kids are always stealing my iPad to run the Toybox 3D printer; this would be a great thing for them to use." Is it? Why not get them a iPad instead?
Yes they are. If opensource product A does not have better features than competing opensource product B, uses move to the better product A and pretty soon, almost nobody will use product B. Take BSD vs Linux for example. We get "we've migrated to BSD" or "we've migrated to Linux" posts all the time and arguments for one or the other. Is there a winner and loser? Yes. Larger communities, more developers, more corporate sponsors, more contributions, etc. Certainly looks like competition to me.
That’s because you’ve been brainwashed by capitalism. The alternative getting less attention might have fewer resources, but there is nothing to “win” here.
Getting “funded” is to get a job maintaining the project. Great! This happens to incredibly few, high-profile projects. Those people wouldn’t be working on the alternative if they didn’t get paid to work on the one they care about.
reply