The additional reporting at [0] about his alleged behaviour in internal channels along with his public posts on social media really reinforces this same feeling for me:
> “oh, since I’m a pirate now, I fucking curse. after 42 years of never uttering a curse word, it’s kinda fucking fun. if this is a HR problem @caron please wrangle me in since my normal wranglers are with @Mark Davies.” […] Mullenweg also posted that the Automattic Slack “smells funny, like turncoats” and said he was going to hang out in the WordPress.org Slack instead.
What does this mean? Fire the VPs who failed to do their jobs? Say what you mean.
> ensuring smooth handoff
“doing their jobs”
> rethink and extend
“fix”
> engender a culture of design
This is a meaningless phrase.
> different kind of thinking
What kind of thinking?
> or a process to be fixed
Processes are how things get done! If programmers push garbage into the list of installed applications, that’s a process failure. If a product team makes a download available but it can’t be found on the main web site’s list of downloads, that’s a process failure. When things get done wrong it’s definitionally a process failure. Process also doesn’t flow from culture, they each exert influence on the other. Bad process will lead to bad culture as much as bad culture will lead to bad process.
I will reiterate what a sibling commenter already said: Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon liberally drizzled in passive voice comes across as candid. Effective communication does not look like this. Effective communication is assertive. It offers direct actionable advice, or asks direct questions which result in actionable answers.
---> First - the notes about language are completely glib.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to use personal tone.
"> After thinking about it
Just say the thing."
"> nipped in the bud
“stop”"
... would be ridiculous feedback to give anyone.
It's perfectly acceptable for any writer to have some personalized inflection in their prose.
There's no misunderstanding or lost context.
The fact that you would even try to pick apart language at level is just weird.
---> Second - "Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon"
There is nothing 'mealy mouthed' about that prose, and there is no 'corporate jargon' in the note.
None.
The writer in that scenario mean exactly what they said - with some allowance for personal inflection.
That's it.
---> Third - "> engender a culture of design
This is a meaningless phrase."
No - it's not a 'meaningless phrase' - it means exactly that, in so many words.
Obviously, I'm not going to write full follow up paragraph on that in HN, the implication is direct.
---> Fourth - and most importantly - you entirely missed the point by trying to nitpick on arbitrary language someone wrote crudely on a HN comment.
The 'point' is to illustrate in quick and rough terms how one could be 'candid' with the feedback about a broken feature - and to also to frame it responsibly, to direct some feedback and as to where the responsibility might lie and where the process might have broken down, and then to more broadly indicate strategic concerns over culture, because there clearly is, particularly around 'user centric concners'.
Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.
You're getting caught up literally in prose and notions of 'process' which is besides the point. This is not about 'process' - it's about a leader framing feedback.
And FYI it was Satya that finally did 'change the culture' (although on different terms) to generally widespread acclaim.
Consider that three people have given you substantially similar feedback about your “candor”. Your attempt at a “personal voice” here comes off extremely fake. Compare your proposed “candid” message with the actual candor in your message at the top of this thread.
Rather than continue to dismiss the feedback, you should digest it and potentially learn something from it. Or not. It’s your choice.
> Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.
And yet you, simply by reading the email Gates sent, were able to confidently ascertain that the culture itself was failing here. You give too little credit to the recipients of this email when you imply that they can’t make the same assessment.
Short of blindly outsourcing the work to an LLM and checking to see if its hallucinated problems are actually problems[0], how can more laymen (without the ability to run replication studies, and without degrees in statistics) learn to more easily identify questionable/potentially fraudulent research like this?
This is a question that has been really bothering me for a while. I have a short list of things I’ve learnt to check, but it’s all stuff I’ve picked up in a very ad hoc way (reading and listening to these kinds of critical analyses, mostly). For example, until now, I wouldn’t think about implausibly large Cohen’s d, despite this seeming like an easily generalisable rule that anyone could eyeball. But without being told, and without the reference points given in the article, I wouldn’t have a clue. And I would like to have more of a clue. And I would like other people to have more of a clue. How?
I don’t agree with the parent that the solution for SEO spam is paying for the search engine (I think there are other good reasons to do this though), especially since people have been doing things like naming their company “AAA Auto Repair” to be first in the phone book since before computers ever existed. But the person you originally replied to does have a point in blaming Google for the problem. Most SEO spam sites make their money from ads, and Google are the ones who run the ad network, which means Google are the ones funding them and creating an incentive for them to exist.
> Finally, anonymity didn't exist for my grandparents.
Your grandparents could walk to the next town over and give themselves a different name and nobody would ever know who they were. They could get a job, be paid in cash, and deposit that money in a bank account with no KYC. They could drop a letter in a public mailbox without a return address, or put up posters at night, or make phone calls from public telephones. Nobody would know who did it, and there would be no surveillance footage to review after the fact, no digital footprint to trace. They could write a letter to their local newspaper to be printed with a fake name, or publish a book or story or magazine under an assumed identity. There were no ALPRs, no automated facial recognition, no built-in vehicle telematics, no drones, no smartphones to track anyone’s movement, no doorbell cameras on every block, no video tapes, no serial numbers hidden in the printouts from copy machines, no DNA analysis, no databases instantly searchable with the click of a button.
Feel free to make a value judgement about whether what we have now is better or worse than the past, if you want, but don’t invent history to rationalise it. The internet did not invent anonymity. It used to be the default.
Man, this sucks. I doubt there’s anything that I can say to get people to stop doing things like this, but the eventual outcome here isn’t going to be freedom for you to scrape sites that are trying to avoid being DDoSed by bots, but instead that we all end up in a world where device attestation is required to do practically anything online. And for what?
> There is no successful social media company that actually cares about the negative impacts it has had on society. They speak about things such as "providing value" where value = time spent on the platform. They do not care if they ruin lives.
I will never forget Ruchi Sanghvi’s remarks at the Female Founders Conference talk in 2015[0]:
> It [the News Feed] became this virtuous cycle that we all dream of: consumption and production that just kept on giving. […] Even though everyone said they hated it, engagement had doubled.
As with the cars, those are not alcohol issues, they are violence issues. Whether a drunk person turns to saccharine displays of affection or destructive acts of violence is likely driven by cultural norms and the underlying conditions of their lives.[0] Blaming alcohol for violence is akin to blaming the internet for increases in fraud.
Globally, 38% of violent deaths are alcohol-related81% of male perpetrators of intimate partner violence in England and Wales test positive for alcohol at arrest
The article isn’t arguing that if ICL facilities are disrupted, that’s it, no more bromine forever. It is saying that if these facilities are disrupted there will be an even bigger problem with DRAM supply than already exists because there is no excess supply, no good alternative, and no quick way to ramp up production.
This dismissive contrarian Pollyanna attitude might serve well to minimise your personal anxiety, but I do not see how what you are saying is in any way the correct approach for making decisions or managing risk.
This is not some article saying that the sky is falling without evidence. It is not even an article saying the sky is falling with evidence. It is an article that says that there is a significant risk, due to an entirely preventable man-made problem, where steps can be taken now to reduce the medium-term impact of the problem. And then it lists those steps. Why is this not OK to you?
> The article isn’t arguing that if ICL facilities are disrupted, that’s it, no more bromine forever. It is saying that if these facilities are disrupted there will be an even bigger problem with DRAM supply than already exists because there is no excess supply, no good alternative, and no quick way to ramp up production.
This is literally the thesis of each and every one of these articles. Only one mine in the world can produce sand for semiconductors, etc. It makes the arguments incredibly persuasive and the predictions almost always wrong.
In reality... I'd wager that the semiconductor industry uses very little bromine compared to say, plastics; and that it can be recycled or sourced from other places with minimal technological investment (e.g., as a simple byproduct of salt production in the US).
I clicked through on the link that the article said showed that bromine was impossible to recycle. The abstract says "Here we propose a catalytic strategy that enables the selective and mild-condition conversion of all organobromides present in wastes into renewed bromides for Br recycling. It employs Ullmann-type reactions enabled by inexpensive Cu(I), simple ligands and hydroxides in DMSO–H2O solvent. This strategy achieved >95% bromide yields at a temperature ≤120 °C for complex real-world Br-laden wastes."
I'm sure it would take a long time to make this process fit for mass bromine recycling, but it's a bit hard to take the rest of the article seriously.
Yes, Hamas and Hezbollah are the IRGC's remote occupying armies in the adjacent territories of Gaza and Lebanon, and they have launched rockets into Israel on a near-daily basis for years.
The difference is Ham/Hez rockets are small, unguided, generally aimed at residential or commercial areas to cause disruption, and are generally low-intensity and are routinely intercepted.
The differences are:
1) The attacks from Iran are large warheads on intermediate range ballistic missiles, with precision targeting.
2) They are fired in coordinated barrages along with drones and other rockets specifically intended to over-saturate the Israeli missile defenses.
3) The attacks are also targeted specifically at industrial infrastructure with the intent of causing maximal damage to the world economy.
4) The targeting uses high-precision satellite data and intelligence from Russia and China to cause maximum global damage.
Those are major differences in both quality and quantity of the attacks.
Before, the risk was relatively low: not targeting this type of industrial site, not using high-intelligence and high-precision targeting, not saturating, and using small warheads unlikely to cause major damage.
The situation since 28-Feb-2026 is entirely different.
I mean, it’s not like Iran built those intermediate range ballistic missiles / hypersonics as yard ornaments for their underwater basket weaving community classes.
It’s not like the location of US bases in the area is a secret.
If Iran wanted to use those hypersonics in an act of defence they would target military installations only.
We can then safely assume that those intermediate range ballistic missiles have been used for their intended purpose: the intentional destruction of industrial and residential areas in Israel and industrial targets of US allies in the area.
The probability that those missiles would be used on those targets was always unity.
>>The probability that those missiles would be used on those targets was always unity.
Yup
In your assessment, unity.
In my assessment well above 80%, certainly so much that they IRGC missile program should have been dealt with decades ago.
But in the assessment of the rest of the market, both the stock market and the industry planning 'market', the probability was in single digits. Likely in no small part due to normalcy bias. If it had been any higher, they would have made backup and recovery plans already.
Of course, I think the US should have been making a stockpile of replacement power grid transformers, and requiring every house to have 1kW of solar power decades ago. But they don't.
It is the new situation in consideration of their lack of insight into the probabilities and planning that makes it different, no? Just because you an I can foresee a problem, doesn't mean everyone can, or will do anything about it. So now, if that target is not defended, the backup plan is years away instead of already running. Worse yet, if the backup plan was already running, targeting that production facility would be near-pointless...
Your comment, like most in this thread, confuses ordinary bromine with semiconductor-grade pure bromine.
The semiconductor industry does not use ordinary chemical substances, but only special semiconductor-grade pure substances, which are many orders of magnitude more pure than the so-called "pure" substances that are used elsewhere in the chemical industry.
It is absolutely irrelevant that substances like ordinary bromine and ordinary silicon are very abundant and very cheap. The semiconductor industry cannot use them and the corresponding semiconductor-grade pure substances are far more expensive and their availability is limited by the production capacities of the very few producers that exist for them around the world.
If the few existing production plants for any semiconductor-grade pure substance were destroyed, semiconductor device manufacturing would be stopped for a few years, until new purification plants are built.
TFA argues that in order to avoid such risks, there should be more purification plants in geographically-diverse locations, for instance that one such purification plant should be built in USA, where there are local producers of ordinary bromine, that would provide the raw material.
> I do not see how what you are saying is in any way the correct approach for making decisions or managing risk.
What decisions or risk management can I reasonably take to mitigate the Bromine chokepoint? Or most of these deep pipeline logistics issues?
Try to plan purchase with more lead time, look for alternatives beyond the original sales market, accept alternatives with less than originally desired specs or accept more than desired price?
When are those not prudent anyway?
I can't make a bromide conversion plant, and my influence on governments is minimal.
The push for efficiency, global outsourcing, global supply chains and JIT manufacturing have been great for the economy, but they assumed a level of reason and stability that can’t be assumed long term.
We went from supply chain shocks due to COVID, to a sift landing, to inflation, to supply chain instability due to tariffs, to petrochemical instability due to stupidity and ego. Plus the delusion that AI is going to fix everything Real Soon Now.
I don’t know how businesses make rational long range plans when the major actors are operating far from rational.
The US willingly jump into the Short Victorious trap without planning. We retired our Minesweepers, four of 11 carries are in process for repair, refurbishing, and refueling. Our allies are fine with letting us clean up our mess. And our diplomatic strategy seems to be Because we said so.
So when the big things are being handled this badly, I’m sure plenty of little things are ready to bite us in the ass.
> It is saying that if these facilities are disrupted there will be an even bigger problem with DRAM supply than already exists because there is no excess supply, no good alternative, and no quick way to ramp up production.
Then the title "Could Halt Production of the World’s Memory Chips" is a lie.
Some people working in genetics allow their personal politics to draw conclusions about racial superiority. Some people working in medical science allow their personal politics to draw conclusions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and other medicines, or about the health effects of certain diets or body weights. Some people working in geology allow their personal politics to draw conclusions about the age or shape of the Earth, or about the safety of extractive industries. Some people working in biology allow their personal politics to draw conclusions about the origin of life. Some people working in computer science allow their personal politics to draw conclusions about the likelihood of AGI and the emergence of machine sentience.
Does this mean genetics, medicine, geology, biology, and computer science “fake” sciences? Of course not. The fact that some people in a field are engaged in scientific malpractice doesn’t invalidate the premise that some subject is worth studying in a scientific way. There are many in the social sciences who publish research that runs counter to their own personal politics because they are, in fact, doing science.
Setting that aside, what even is the relevance of a distinction between “personal politics”, and, say, someone who is willing to accept money in exchange for publishing favourable research in any direction? Or someone who engages in fraud in order to feed their ego? Or people who spend 30 years down the amyloid plaque rabbit hole due to fraud and what appear from the outside to be very unhealthy group dynamics (which might not be so unhealthy if they took some cues from the social sciences)?[0]
But let’s set all that aside for a moment.
If we were to do as you propose and “denounce and defund” whatever you define as the “social sciences”, what method should be used instead to guide our lawmaking and personal decision-making about important questions that fall under that umbrella? Majority rule? Might makes right? Whatever fable we learn as children must be true and remain unquestioned?
What you are proposing is to take a system that at least attempts to be objective some of the time, and say it should be destroyed in favour of… what, exactly?
I cannot object to the premise that there is a lot of junk science in the social sciences. I wish it were better. It is deeply ironic that you are here using research from a social science field as proof for your claim that social sciences should be denounced and defunded.
Getting back to your original claim. Perhaps a big reason why something like physics may seem as though “personal politics don’t determine the outcome” is because most of it is sufficiently abstract that, today, there is rarely some direct conflict with any deeply ingrained cultural belief. Social sciences, on the other hand, usually point the spotlight directly on things people hold as sacrosanct. This is a double-edged sword, since it means researchers are also more likely to put a thumb on the scale—which is exactly what this research suggests. But there is no fundamental error in the idea that the scientific method can and should be used to look at humans and human systems, so a call to “denounce and defund” is reactionary nonsense.
So many of the questions we all really want answers to are in the social sciences area. While some of us want to see interesting work done in physics, humanity as a whole craves some kind of answers to all those junk studies that at least attempted to apply rigorous methods. Immigration is used as an example in this article. If studying a topic like that is off the table,what are we even left with?
> “oh, since I’m a pirate now, I fucking curse. after 42 years of never uttering a curse word, it’s kinda fucking fun. if this is a HR problem @caron please wrangle me in since my normal wranglers are with @Mark Davies.” […] Mullenweg also posted that the Automattic Slack “smells funny, like turncoats” and said he was going to hang out in the WordPress.org Slack instead.
Good luck to everyone in the blast radius.
[0] https://www.therepository.email/matt-mullenweg-swears-for-th...
reply