He's also embraced some of the deepest of right-wing craziness, Q, and was often parroting right-wing talking points with bonus homo- and trans-phobic tweets salted around.
More like this, intel has cut a lot of corners for a long time in their x86 processors, mostly to have better performance, which ended up with all these vulnerabilites we keep hearing about every couple of months. They're just now suffering the consequences of all the shady things they've done to try and establish a monopoly in the CPU market
A more generous interpretation: Intel made decisions that favored actual measurable performance today at the expensive of theoretically known vulnerabilities that might be exploited in some hypothetical future. They gave the market what the market demanded at a cost they tolerated.
And even now, after said theoretical vulnerabilities have been reified, there is very little cause to be concerned about the vulnerabilities under discussion unless you host code for other people as a business model (or use such a service). Otherwise your biggest concern is a web browser that already has a whole host of actual and theoretical vulnerabilities of its own.
> They gave the market what the market demanded at a cost they tolerated.
This suggests a level of informed consent that I don't think existed. It implies that "the market" (who?) knew of, understood, and agreed to the risks.
And anyway, "the market" does a poor job of representing some of its stakeholders, notably the disorganized group known as users, and immediate competitive advantage may be the only metric driving decision-making.
Intel made decisions that favored the actual indicators people were looking at with a hidden cost on things people weren't aware of. They got the market exactly what the market demanded while deceiving that market by applying known bad practices. There is a huge difference in impact from saving money by using lead-based paint, but it's the same kind of decision.
> unless you host code for other people as a business model
Or is a victim of one of those javascript based exploits when visiting a random site.
Any security researcher or engineer worth their salary is already planning for those theoretical vulnerabilities. Ideas like these are hashed out at the development meeting. Not fixed after the cart has left the barn.
But intel calculates their TDP at base clocks while AMD calculates theirs at boost clocks, so AMD definitely definitely has a better wattage per performance
Put yourself in the shoes of the board of directors and you'll find they too don't want to overpay for CEOs. But paychecks are market driven, and lowering the pay means you'll end up with a less experienced or worse CEO.
I guess that would be a problem if board members were willing to take a hit on profitability to load up their pal. Maybe shareholders don't notice, or while the market is doing well they don't question it.
> the companies run by the CEOS who were paid at the top 10% of the scale, had the worst performance. How much worse? The firms returned 10% less to their shareholders than did their industry peers
By that metric isn't Amazon the worst company there is?
To their credit, Amazon is pretty diligent about making sure that high performing employees get pay raises to match their market. My record is a 30% raise, mostly by switching job functions from non-tech to a tech role.
Or they could've been more transparent, everyone knows batteries dont last as long after 1-2 years, but they decided to gimp them down (and effectively slowing them down, even if you dont like that term, it is what it is). Their batteries are sub-par in capacity compared to most manufacturers (They hadnt even passed 2000 mAh until the 6 plus/6s plus, and their non-plus models have never passed 2000 mAh, only the X's have more than 2000)
Sounds like you're pulling stuff from out of your ass, the truth here is corrective vs punitive, corrective leads to a lot less recidivism, unlike punitive. All you have to look at is recidivism rates in the US vs northern European countries that have corrective prison systems in place. Norway has a 20% recidivism rate compared to the US's 67.8% withing 3 years, and 76.6% within 5 years.
