[scns]

> Companies that stay successful are the ones which don’t fear to constantly disrupt themselves through technological innovation.

Spot on, intel immediately comes to mind. Will playing it safe always lead to mediocrity though? Depends i guess, heard that a good poker player loses less often.

(edit) Enjoyed reading the rest of the article too. In the environmental impact section i missed the idea of using more efficient languages though.

Loved your article "Learnings from six months as a first-time engineering manager" too. I was instantly reminded of the documentary on Michael Schuhmacher on Netflix i watched yesterday. I couldn't care less about Formula 1, but still think that it is an amazing movie and great role model for good leadership. He was asked over radio after he won the championship: "How do you feel?" There are several seconds of silence. He answers: "Ross you are the best. You guys are all great. We did it." I thought: "Wow, he puts the others before himself. A great example of a good King after the theory of archetypes by C.G. Jung"

[mfer]

Companies that are successful are the ones that meet the needs or desires people have. Some of those change a little and some a lot. Some it’s tweaks and others it’s wholesale change. It’s not about the technology, it’s about the people

[dhosek]

There's a difference between disrupting yourself and not playing it safe.

[DennisP]

Good poker players don't exactly play it safe. They play very cautiously most of the time, but very aggressively when the odds are in their favor. And sometimes they bluff on top of that.

[hyperpallium2]

funfact: Andy Grove had a blurb on the cover of "The Innovator's Dilemma", that coined the term "disruption".