#performance

Every acquisition this guy has been involved with has been a failure. Assets were sold for 1/2 or less what they paid for them. And this is good ?

This doesn’t look like performance to me.

It looks like failure yet he is still handsomely compensated.

I barely even know what to say. This company will use you and use you. Relishing your output as you’re dying inside. If you try to do the right thing and get help for yourself, that’s when they will start looking at you.

Do not work here.

How many frac crews have been put down this year?

Have they been cutting in other PSL's yet?

Does leadership have an AI backup plan? So many companies are realizing AI isn’t going to save them any money. It’s producing too low quality of code and is costing too much in compute. The biggest misconception for people is that AI is already an AGI. These models are LLMs and only know what patterns they’re trained to understand. They just don’t get a deep understanding of enterprise code.

AI is still awesome to have in the workplace. Its understanding of documents and Eliza features like proof of concept apps are cool. But let’s be realistic, it’s not replacing anyone. If it has, BNY might regret it later.

Does leadership see this at all? Or will they die on the AI hill since our senior leadership team and CEO talk about AI so publicly? I think they need to loosen their expectations.

The WIM hammer is coming. Market Leaders not recruiting, gone! Branch Managers not recruiting, gone! Not generating income via Alts, gone!

Source below. The Economist, Aug 21st 2025 - 5 min read

Donald Trump’s fantasy of home-grown chipmaking

• To remain the world’s foremost technological power, America needs its friends

How low mighty Intel has fallen. Half a century ago the American chipmaker was a byword for the cutting edge; it went on to dominate the market for personal-computer chips and in 2000 briefly became the world’s second-most-valuable company. Yet these days Intel, with a market capitalisation of $100bn, is not even the 15th-most-valuable chip firm, and supplies practically none of the advanced chips used for artificial intelligence (AI). Once an icon of America’s technological and commercial prowess, it has lately been a target for subsidies and protection. As we published this, President Donald Trump was even mulling quasi-nationalisation.

More than ever, semiconductors hold the key to the 21st century. They are increasingly critical for defence; in the ai race between America and China, they could spell the difference between victory and defeat. Even free-traders acknowledge their strategic importance, and worry about the world’s reliance for cutting-edge chips on tsmc and its home of Taiwan, which faces the threat of Chinese invasion. Yet chips also pose a fiendish test for proponents of industrial policy. Their manufacture is a marvel of specialisation, complexity and globalisation. Under those conditions, intervening in markets is prone to fail—as Intel so vividly illustrates.

To see how much can go wrong, consider its woes. Hubris caused the firm to miss both the smartphone and the ai waves, losing out to firms such as Arm, Nvidia and tsmc. Joe Biden’s CHIPS Act, which aimed to spur domestic chipmaking, promised Intel $8bn in grants and up to $12bn in loans. But the company is floundering. A fab in Ohio meant to open this year is now expected to begin operations in the early 2030s. Intel is heavily indebted and generates barely enough cash to keep itself afloat.

A factory worker in a red baseball cap holding up a shining silicon wafer
Illustration: Deena So'Oteh
The sums needed to rescue it keep growing. By one estimate Intel will need to invest more than $50bn in the next few years if it is to succeed at making leading-edge chips. Even if the government were to sink that much into the firm, it would have no guarantee of success. The company is said to be struggling with its latest manufacturing process. Its sales are falling and its plight risks becoming even more desperate.

The Biden administration failed with Intel, but Mr Trump could make things worse. He has threatened tariffs on chip imports, and may try to browbeat firms such as Nvidia into using Intel to make semiconductors for them. These measures might buy Intel time but they would be self-defeating for America. Chipmaking is not an end in itself but a critical input America’s tech sector requires to be world-beating. Forcing firms to settle for anything less than the best would blunt their edge.

What should America do? One lesson is not to pin the nation’s hopes on keeping Intel intact. It could sell its fab business to a deep-pocketed investor, such as SoftBank, which has reportedly expressed interest in buying it and this week announced a $2bn investment in Intel. Or it could sell its design arm and pour the proceeds into manufacturing. Intel may fail to catch up with TSMC even then. Either way, the federal government should not throw good money after bad. Taking a stake in Intel would only complicate matters.

That leads to a second lesson: to look beyond Intel and solve other chipmakers’ problems. tsmc is seeking to spread its wings. It is running out of land for giant fabs in Taiwan and its workforce is ageing. It has already pledged to invest $165bn to bring chipmaking to America. A first fab is producing four-nanometre (nm) chips and a second is scheduled to begin making more advanced chips by 2028. Samsung, a South Korean chipmaker that is having more success than Intel, is setting up a fab in Texas. But progress has been slow: Samsung and TSMC have both struggled with a lack of skilled workers and delays in receiving permits.

The last lesson is that, even if domestic chipmaking does make America more resilient, the country cannot shut itself off from the rest of the world. One reason is that the supply chain is highly specialised, with key inputs coming from across the globe, including extreme-ultraviolet lithography machines from the Netherlands and chipmaking tools from Japan. The other is that Taiwan and its security will remain critical. Even by the end of this decade, when tsmc’s third fab in America is due to begin producing 2nm chips, two-thirds of such semiconductors are likely to be made on the island. TSMC’s model is based on innovating at home first, before spreading its advances around the world.

To keep America’s chip supply chains resilient, Mr Trump needs a coherent, thought-through strategy—a tall order for a man who governs by impulse. No wonder he is going in the wrong direction. On Taiwan he has been cavalier, confident that China will not invade on his watch, while failing to offer the island consistent support. His tariffs on all manner of inputs will raise the costs of manufacturing in America; promised duties on chip imports will hurt American customers. He thrives on uncertainty, but chipmakers require stability.

A sensible chip policy would make it attractive to build fabs in America by easing rules over permits and creating programmes to train engineers. Instead of using tariffs as leverage, the government should welcome the imports of machinery and people that support chipmaking. Given the bipartisan consensus on the importance of semiconductors, the administration should seek a policy that has Democratic support—with the promise of continuity from one president to the next.

Economic nationalists should also see the progress of chipmakers in allied countries as a contribution to America’s security. Samsung is aiming to start producing 2nm chips in South Korea later this year. Rapidus, a well-funded chipmaking startup in Japan, is making impressive progress. Both countries have a tradition of manufacturing excellence, and may have a better shot at emulating Taiwan.

The chipmaking industry took decades to evolve. It is built for an age of globalisation. When economic nationalists build their policies on autarky, they are setting themselves a needlessly hard task—if not an impossible one.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/08/21/donald-trumps-fantasy-of-home-grown-chipmaking

here is my mini rant... they expect you to do “plus one” work and a bunch of unchargable stuff, and you've got to play along if you want to be rated as good. basically do extra work for free, on top of your actual project, otherwise your performance looks weak. it’s a scam imho...

staffing is a constant headache and the process is not clear at all andd you never know who makes the decisions, and every time you’re scrambling just to land somewhere. feels like you’re rolling dice more than planning a career.

and forget about keeping your tech skills. most people get pushed into business analyst or pm type roles whether they want to or not. you stop coding, you stop building, you end up in meetings taking notes. your skills just rot away.

ok, soooo -- no promotions, no raises. fine... 2+ yrs of nothing for a lot of people. they just say wait, be patient... but nothing changes. what’s the point of working harder if the outcome is the same??

nobody will be surprised when I say that everyone i know is pulling overtime, weekends, late nights. they say it’s temporary but it’s always like that. that's just acn, that's what they say. and that's the game they've been playing for decades. it just becomes normal. at this point you start asking yourself, why am i even here???

I joined about ten months ago and it was great for the first six months. But lately, everything I do is suddenly under a microscope, tasks feel impossible, and I’m left out of key meetings. My work isn’t acknowledged, and my role keeps changing. Is this just how things are, or is it a sign I’m being edged out?

It was a long Monday. Everyone can do what they want, but don't complete surveys. They’re seeking legitimacy for pre-planned actions. The only survey should be work output. That’s the bottom line.

The company when hired 17 years ago promised a long-term career. I performed really well initially and began moving to different jobs every 1-2 years. I always felt as soon as I really understood and could add value they rotated me. Management told me I’m gaining exposure to all aspects of the business to be a future leader.

Now the company reduced my potential And I’m sure they want to replace me with a low cost employee in India.

I’ve started looking elsewhere but I’m not qualified because I’m a generalist and master of nothing. It’s like the 15 years of dedicated service were for nothing. My options are to stay knowing I have limited upside or take a pay cut and start all over.

Be honest, how many of the corporate initiatives you’ve been asked to work on are pointless? Reflecting back on the last few years, I’m embarrassed at the amount of work I’ve put into corporate initiatives that are either completely pointless, or totally ineffective. Most of these have either been quietly abandoned or performatively kept alive. For me, it’s nearly all of them. And frankly, it’s affects how I approach current initiatives. I do as I’m told, but don’t really care about the actual quality, since I know it’ll be dead in 12-18 months any way.

If you are at Dell then you aren't great either but just good enough.