A couple years ago, I needed a front end developer to implement the work of our designer in a way the team could maintain. Not having a network in front end, I combed through the past 3 months of "Who wants to be hired" and freelancer threads, shortlisted 7 with the right skillset, got a quote from each, discussed their portfolios internally with the team, and hired the one we agreed on. The site is still up today. That was probably the fastest hiring cycle I've ever done, from start to payment in about a week or two.
I will browse the thread as a hiring manager but it is fairly rare that what I am looking for has relevant candidates. It is easier to advertise in Who's Hiring and get many qualified applicants with a much higher conversion rate than any channel except recommendations by existing employees.
Similarly, I found more relevant people faster in Who Wants to be Hired than on the regular sites for promoting one's design portfolio which felt a bit like browsing LinkedIn.
"I think, says that everything you do illegally, you do efficiently. This, of course, is perfectly obvious. For one thing, you do not write at all because writing on an illegal project is suicide. For another thing, you work with whatever equipment you have on hand, and of course, you do everything on your lunch hour, which starts at 8:00 in the morning and finishes at 5:00 in the evening. Another thing, when it doesn’t work well and it is illegal, you drop it very quickly and kill the project."
- Sidewinder: Creative Missile Development at China Lake, Ron Westrum
> You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas to avoid taking out the historic stuff as mentioned in the article and maybe pay out 50% above market to existing buildings in the way so they are not too pissed off but it could be doable.
Already exists, see e.g. Croydon. Yes, not in Zone 1, but 14 minutes to London Bridge by Thameslink, about the same time it took me to go from South Kensington to Westminster/St James in the early 2000s and probably without having to wait out a couple trains at rush hour due to lack of space within.
At the time there were no other options in the niche, and it fitted well with what some of us wanted: huge battery life, few features that worked well, lightweight, robust... cheap! Meanwhile Samsung, Garmin etc. went after Apple looking for features at the cost of everything else.
Today there is a myriad of competitors; when pebble.com went down, I bought one with 45 day battery life and otherwise the same features as a Pebble HR+ at the same price, plus GPS. There's third party apps for a few bucks.
I do miss the always-on display and its clarity, but not dealing with the slow and buggy software and lack of sync or ability to export the data. And I have more confidence in Xiaomi being around in a few years, not that it matters with Google Fit, MyFitnessPal and local CSV backups.
My Amazfit Bip ($99) is supposed to have 45 days and lasts about 30 days on minute heart rate monitoring intervals (based on a month and a half of trying it).
I wanted something a bit smaller, to fit under the shirt cuff, so got the Mi Band 3 ($50) which lasts about 10 days (probably 20 days if you don't allow it to display notifications and set a higher HR interval).
The Mi app is pretty bad, which forces you to buy an extra app (for me, Notify & Fitness, for Google Fit sync).
In regards to the Mi Band 3, there is an app called Mi Band Master, which works a lot better then the original. It exists for both Android and iPhone. I use it for sleep monitoring, and notifications. Battery lasts for about 2 weeks.
> a bank fired some old people to pay a billion dollars to a contractor who would hire the same (!) people to do the job
"a bank" is technically incorrect. The decision was a perfectly rational prisoner's dilemma defection from one executive (cut costs by firing the "expensive employees" and hiring "cheaper and newer"), who went on to be promoted on that basis, and it was the next generation of executives who had to deal with the mess and "hired IBM" so they could absolve responsibility of a situation with no visible upside if successful and tons of visible downside if not.
Except that's not what happened in the specific example given - it was a strategic decision to spend a billion dollars and multiple years to replace an old system that processed transactions in daily batch jobs with a modern system that can do transactions effectively instantly - which is exactly what the parent post was arguing should occur
> cut costs by firing the "expensive employees" and hiring "cheaper and newer"
You should do everything else to cut costs before you start getting rid of your people. Those people understand your business and you're going to need those people when things turn around (and they usually do). Any time you let people go, you're throwing away domain knowledge. You've PAID for that. It is an asset. You'd no more throw away all the computers in the building, why would you throw away your employees!?
For the large companies, it was probably due to pensions. When you take into account ever increasing lifespans and the number of people nearing eligibility for pensions at that time, it was a no brainer for finance and management. A lot of people didn't get fired. Instead they were transferred to one of the big consulting firms like Accenture and they ended up working for the same pay but much less benefits as contractor to their former employer. Some of those affected were smart enough to sue their former employers but I would guess that most did not.
The ironic thing about your reply is that it is crafted in exactly the type of management speak that executives used to convince stakeholders in both occasions.
"absolve relevant parties of their responsibilities" - what relevant parties? What responsibilities? It sounds great and responsible, giving a good impression of dismissal of the point made, but the wording is so general as to be impossible to act upon - just as with "a bank". I'm sure standardised checklists were ticked, committees reviewed the decisions and came to the conclusion that it was best, the board was satisfied with the new direction taken by the CTO's organisation, and the shareholders happy with the cost reduction at the time as described by the board. To paraphrase Thatcher, what colour trousers do the relevant parties wear?
You see this defection pattern everywhere. For example, the never ending stream of useless new features in most Google and some Microsoft products which coincidentally get slower and buggier every year, because you can get promoted for the visible addition of a feature as a PM, but it is much harder to prove that getting the Gmail app load time down by 70% has stopped the feeding of your best power users to the competition (Calendar is too easy a target for criticism).
The classic defector on the tech side is the "ninja rockstar developer" whose prolific output of code and visually attractive but functionally superficial features is matched only by the amount of frustration generated after they are promoted somewhere else or changes jobs if it doesn't happen fast enough, and the rest of the team has to deal with the technical debt and new, unrealistic user expectations.
Security is another good candidate for shortcuts, since there is no visible upside to good security (maybe you were just not attacked) and tons of downside for taking responsibility since you make yourself a visible scapegoat for blame when a crisis does happen.
And note that none of these examples are in "move fast and break things" i.e. "do illegal things and hope they become legal ex-post" territory! I personally take great pains to understand these dynamics so that I can avoid them in my own company, which is a matter of survival.
ABC(C)D. Dreyfus is in between Bunge and ADM in terms of revenue and quite influential in Africa and some parts of Latam (Cargill is the outsized one, twice as large as any of the other and culturally quite different). Continental (now ContiGroup) is about a fifth as large as e.g. Dreyfus so doesn't quite count.
I would recommend the ageing, but still relevant Merchants of Grains [1] for a better understanding of the dynamics of this industry. More modern books - such as Marc Rich's biography - are too sanitised. As you hint, it can't really be "disrupted" by technology - the advantages these companies have are more geopolitical than informational. My position reporting platform in the late 2000s dated from 1994 and had never been updated; despite 5-6 layers of control, some faulty trades (e.g. FX hedge the wrong way) were not caught for months. Some heads of trading desks could negotiate with ministers profitably, but had trouble understanding simple derivatives.
They destroyed the tooling and already built prototypes as fast as they could. In particular:
> The only airframe ever to fly, XR219, along with the completed XR221 and part completed XR223 were taken to Shoeburyness and used as targets to test the vulnerability of a modern airframe and systems to gunfire and shrapnel.
It was not just a project that was "cancelled" but an industry. At least the Olympus made it to the Concorde.
It’s implied that the Arrow was destroyed quite so completely to stop the Soviets getting their hands on any useful knowledge.
Olympus was being used in the Vulcan and the 593 project started in order to produce engines for Concorde a year [1] before the TSR 2 was canned, so it wasn’t as if they could take those engines away.
Avro Canada were in trouble, and killing the project was the beginning of the end for them but it’s not as if they were the only ones. Hawker Siddeley (the TSR 2) wound up owned by BAC in 1977 and Bristol/Bristol Siddeley (Olympus engines) was bought by Rolls-Royce in 1966 (then Rolls were liquidated/state owned by 1971), so things did not go well for them either.
Orenda (manufacturer of the Iroquois) still exists, albeit as a sister company of Bristol Aerospace [2], and Bombardier joined together the remnants of Canadair, Short Brothers, Learjet and de Havilland Canada. It’s not like Canada doesn’t have any aerospace industry left.
My point, if there was one, was that the 50s-70s was a time when the aviation industry went through huge change worldwide, and everyone seemed to have the same short-sighted view that automation/missiles would eat the world (narrator: it didn’t).
The impact has been negative for the following reasons.
First, the groups made whisky into a luxury good, expanding the customer base away from the amateur who bought the bottle for its contents. In certain industries, a bubble is a good thing as it draws a lot of talent into the industry. However, whisky is supply constrained - the older stuff is limited in quantity by the smaller market when they were bottled. The result has been a global rise in prices and cut in quality. See the NAS on all Japanese entry and many mid-level bottles, and Japanese houses importing after exhausting their own reserves; or the newly purchased and restructured Mortlach, which is also NAS despite its premium price tag. There is also a shortage of actual casks, particularly sherry, in this case limited by the Spanish wine market, leading to "creative" finishes or sub-par casks being systematically used to meet demand.
Second, from the POV of the house doing the acquisition, a brand has to fit in a portfolio of brands, and this can lead to intentional downgrading. For a well-known, non-whisky example, Longines has suffered post-acquisition, because the Swatch Group has decided that Omega should be their flagship mass market premium brand. You do not retain strategic independence or the ability to just "produce good stuff" after acquisition - the so called synergies can be negative for you.
Third, the massive influx of money into the industry has all but killed the apprenticeship model which is still alive and well in the wine world. If a distiller should show even a hint of skill, they will be rapidly discovered and acquired before they can grow. There is a parallel today in the startup world where everyone seems to be gunning for acqui-hires rather than building a company the scale of PayPal or Amazon (and WhatsApp showed that everyone has a price, and the industry will pay it); and Google etc.'s talent safari leads to a corresponding drop in great people contributing to open source research, which harms the commons (the advancement of collective human knowledge is slowed). There are hints of what could be; for some reason Australia has somewhat escaped the sights of M&A divisions, and Tasmanian whisky, not exactly the most well known thing to put in your shelf, is bid up to over $500/bottle (in Heartwood's case, for example) by amateurs with means. I wonder what a whisky market closer to France's wine industry would look like...
Fourth, the Veblen good buyer may actually have so much impact on the industry as to change the product itself. The explosion in popularity of Bordeaux premier cru wines in the new world as part of a well balanced portfolio has led to a move towards massively tannic wines that lack the balance and elegance that used to be prized amongst the French experts (who by and large are priced out anyway). We have witnessed a similar drive in whisky towards peat, not just in the Scottish islands but globally. Peat can be measured, and bigger is better, after all: just ask Ardbeg (owned by LVMH).
Fifth, the marketing money screws with information discovery. The big brands can completely cover any buzz about independents with noise by paying for thousands of journalists (whether experts or not) to write reviews on their products, by sending free samples to anything that looks like it talks about whisky, by organising frequent events, through the usual SEO Google-undermining process, and so on. Censorship through abundance. Until one finds a good gatekeeper, it can be difficult to find good value, and most gatekeepers are co-opted.
Sullivan's Cove was best whisky and one of the Limeburners best international whisky.
Despite this, you can't find the former at Sydney Airport's duty free (Heinemann) and only two NAS of the latter. These NAS are not even on sale on Limeburners' own website.
In comparison, both Kavalan and Amrut were widely, internationally distributed and marketed after their awards. I've seen both being aggressively pushed at whisky bars all around the world. The former is owned by a Taiwanese family group allegedly clearing half a billion a year in revenue, the latter by an Indian conglomerate specialising in the low end, high volume part of the market for half a century until they launched the eponymous single malt. And of course the Japanese names are all backed by giant keiretsus with the means to go big and global and even acquire the competition [1].
