"I gambled on bit of their stock after their big drop last year, but if their senior technical folks are bailing, time to get out."

Senior technical people have been leaving Intel for over a decade.

Other companies have been doing better technical work, come with less political infighting, cancel products less often, and pay significantly more.

Where's the actual study?

All this story links to is a Yahoo Finance blurb which links to another investing blurb. No one links the actual study.

All the blurbs do is use the phrase "up to" a lot. That's historically a loaded phrase when it cones to this sort of thing. I'd like to read the details.

How are they preventing this from creating a new market for stolen phones.

(Chop shops for phones??)

âGoogle's latest dead project [â¦], "was beset by a constantly shifting strategy and lack of focus from senior leadership."â(TM)

So, in other words, nothing has changed since I last worked with Google X on their second (third?) version of Glass.

That project felt like it was being run by a bunch of grad students who didnâ(TM)t actually want to graduate because they were having too much fun living in the dorms.

Deep in the bowels of a fading Santa Clara office.

Pat: Appleâ(TM)s Pro/Max/Ultra chips are eating our lunch! What is going on! We used to be the best microprocessor company on the planet! Fix this! Now!

Extra #1: We still are the best! I refuse to look at anything outside these walls and our internal benchmarks show weâ(TM)re beating everyone!

Extra #2: Getting on top again will require fundamental rethinking of our designs, manufacturing, corporate structure, entirely new interactions with every hardware and software company weâ(TM)ve ever spoken with, and lots of hard work. Years if not decades of hard work.

Pat: What youâ(TM)re describing is a completely new company!

Marketing #1: Its simple. You want your own Pro/Max/Ultra thingamabobs⦠Rename our products Pro/Max/Ultra and youâ(TM)re done. No need to do anything else!

Pat: Sold! I just found my new head of engineering! Now please go fix our manufacturing problem!

^ This poster is correct.
The big tech companies are paying key tech talent more in bonuses and stock than in base salary.

The low performers or easy to replace individuals certainly don't make as much but the ones who move the ball forward are doing extremely well.

Heck - my base salary last year barely covered my W2 state + federal taxes.

âoeBecause B-school scum (and they are scum) aren't good at pricing in environmental costs.â

Neither are bureaucrats.

Random thought - is there a chance the fundamentals of the math we learn as children ins missing something important?

When the other option is the NV dept. of education? Absolutely.

You could probably add a few other horrible things to the list that Tesla isnâ(TM)t doing and the answer may still be âoeyes.â

That seems to be the case.

The month to month stats for the control group donâ(TM)t appear to improve over the period.

The only thing that happens is that the people who received money slowly fall back to the same level as the control group after several months and no one is better off at the end of the day.

(Except for the researchers, they probably enjoyed their monthly paycheck.)

Thatâ(TM)s the thing... the people receiving money did NOT spend less on drugs and alcohol. They spent more.

Thatâ(TM)s certainly an interesting interpretation of the results.

Glancing through the source linked by the CNN article, this appears to be their published data:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.squarespace.co...

The charts seem to show that yes, people who were given a relatively large lump sum of cash were suddenly able to spend more cash on everything.

For the first ~6 months they appear to increased their spending on everything including housing, clothes, food.

After 6-9 months their month-to-month metrics then appear to fall back in line with the ones who were not given the cash. The accumulated monthly totals the researchers are using continue to look good due to the cash influx but the monthly metrics certainly look like the cash provided a short temporary bump and everyone ended up back in the same spot at the end.

âoeBut they spent less on drugs and alcohol!â

Careful. Based on one of the carts in the back of that deck it appears that they spent less as a relative percentage of their total monthly spend (~8% vs ~12%) but the group that was given cash was spending more.

If you compare absolute values spent on average on alcoholic and drugs then the group that was given cash spent 11% more on average on alcohol and drugs over the course of 12 or 18 months.

But remember, most of the metrics fell back in line with the control group after 6-9 months. If we assume absolute monthly spend on alcohol and drugs follows the same pattern (it absent from the published data) then one would have to assume the monthly spend on alcohol and drugs was noticeably higher in the first few months and then fell back to the control baseline once the money ran out.

Of course, some of that is speculation weâ(TM)re forced to make since the raw data isnâ(TM)t published and the authors are pulling a few tricks with their results.

Duh!

They have spent years with Thunderbolt and have developed an ecosystem of Thunderbolt accessories. No one with any grasp of the tech ecosystem believed they wouldn't support Thunderbolt.

Frankly, if anyone you listen to suggested otherwise you should stop listening to them.

A skeleton key / lever lock key from the early 1900s that belonged to my grandfather and a Sauber BMW F1 leather loop

I'm trying to imagine the results for a similar review of computer science and computer architecture research from most universities.

Since there is nearly zero reproduction of results, limited validation, generally poor test content and few incentives to improve research quality I doubt the results would instill much confidence.