[yoyoyo1122]

Lip-Bu Tan was previously on the board but left after disagreements:

> Over time, Tan grew frustrated by the company’s large workforce, its approach to contract manufacturing and Intel’s risk-averse and bureaucratic culture, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/intel-board-member-quit-a...

[silisili]

Tan's complaints seem to be the same ones I read here over and over from ex-employees, so hopefully he can actually turn it around.

[Galanwe]

The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well.

[melling]

There is no current permanent CEO. Pat Gelsinger got fired last December. I liked him but it sounds like the board got impatient.

Intel trying to regain a foothold in fabs is costly and time consuming. Hopefully, they are finally able to turn it around.

[Alupis]

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well.

Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own right. Especially one with such a large entrenched bureaucracy as Intel has.

Politics aside for a moment - we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE - the main difference is the fight is in full public view instead of behind closed doors. We can only imagine and speculate at the resistance Pat and others met while trying to change Intel's course.

The infamous Oscar Wilde quote is very applicable: "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." - Ever large bureaucracy eventually exists largely to preserve itself. This is why it is so incredibly difficult to reduce the size of a bureaucracy. Every member is convinced the organization will fail tomorrow if they are let go today, and every member fights/resists any and all changes that threaten their bureaucracy and the status quo.

Best of luck to Tan - I truly hope they succeed where many have failed at Intel. AMD needs a healthy Intel to drive motivation and competition. The world will be watching.

[zvr]

Bureaucracies are about processes.

I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy.

If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy is untouched -- it will just take longer without people and money.

[rowanG077]

Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, they say processes are not efficient. Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term.

[consteval]

> Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term.

I disagree, of course it will meaningfully decrease the efficacy. The purpose of DOGE is to dismantle organizations which provide accountability for the private sector and the executive, including organizations which literally focus on optimizing processes.

Of course, the same amount of stuff needs to get done. The workload doesn’t actually decrease because these jobs are complex in nature. There’s a lot of citizens to provide services to, or a lot of organizations to regulate. Those factors stay constant. The hope is that they’re unable to do their jobs in time, and we get more “asbestos in baby powder” type incidents as a result. Or shitty water (literally) or listeria, or watergates, or pick whatever bad thing you want when regulation goes down.

I truly don’t understand how people make such bold statements as “letting people go changes nothing!” Really? What’s the mechanism for that? Process just… become more efficient? Do we even know how efficient the processes currently are? Because something tells me you have no idea. You’re assuming they’re inefficient because that’s easy to believe and requires no analysis.

[sifar]

>> If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient.

Or broken. The latter has a higher a probability.

This is pretty naive, one dimensional thinking. Making things efficient requires deep systems understanding and lack of which is on display here (Chesterton's fence). And one can achieve it reasonably for physical/technical things, however dismantling social processes that have evolved over the years for variety of reasons indicates neither the capability nor the desire to improve them.

[specialist]

What's DOGE's plan for process improvement? Is there a policy and legislative framework in the works?

[arunabha]

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE

That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs.

So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot of has been cut so far has been very favourable to the ultra rich. The most obvious ones being cutting the IRS enforcement budget and gutting the CFPB.

It's possible to argue that all of that is good policy, but the facts make it very to claim that all of the destruction being wrought is going to make a meaningful dent in the government's spending.

[specialist]

> So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget.

IIRC, less even than the govt's subsidies to Musk's enterprises.

[rowanG077]

Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much.

Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of the software engineers. I'm not a heavy twitter user but I haven't noticed any difference in terms of reliability.

[specialist]

Have you read the misc "why can't America build things any more" criticisms? Like why our mega projects are super expensive, late, and over budget.

The recurring punchline is: Lack of administrative capacity.

The trials and tribulations of California's ill fated high speed rail is such a case study. Decades of outsourcings and privatization eliminated CA's ability to manage the effort.

[chuankl]

> Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much.

A tenth of one percent. So not 10%, but 0.1%.

[cinntaile]

There is a massive difference though. It doesn't matter to anyone if Twitter works or not, while a lot of people depend on functioning government agencies.

[huxley]

After getting rid of most third party app support, 99.9% of all API access, losing massive chunks of active userbase and virtually all advertising except penis pills and scams, site performance probably isn’t terrible for casual users, it would difficult for it to not be adequate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[UltraSane]

"we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE"

DOGE is just Musk bribing Trump into letting him settle scores and shut down agencies that are investigating him or that he doesn't like. Finding and eliminating "inefficiency" is just another one of Musk's myriad lies. I'm shocked at how many people still consider him to have any credibility at all.

[la64710]

It’s a well written comment. Just because you disagree is no reason to downvote a well written comment.

[gessha]

"Politics aside for a moment" and then following up with politics is at the very least a logically inconsistent statement.

Logical inconsistencies aside for a moment, the comment would've carried a little more weight if cited any sources for their claims.

[signatoremo]

we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE

What is political about that statement? You may disagree with him, I certainly don’t think all of what happened with DOGE is justified, but that was a neutral statement.

[bee_rider]

The comment (despite protests to the contrary) injected politics unnecessarily and a bit randomly (there’s no particular reason to believe Intel and the US government are very similar).

[ethbr1]

> (there’s no particular reason to believe Intel and the US government are very similar)

Large monopolies with limited market pressure to innovate?

[htrp]

so he's getting knifed after 6 months and Intel will be in even worse shape?

[DebtDeflation]

It's really simple - either Intel is shipping products on 18A (Panther Lake and Clearwater Forest) by Q1 of next year or they are not, and their entire future hinges on this.

[gpm]

I'm not an expert in the silicon business, but I'm pretty sure the lead time is long enough that an incoming CEO has little impact on whether or not they are shipping a new architecture in less than 12 months.

Intel's valuation might hinge on it, but evaluating the CEOs success or not... that doesn't strike me as a great idea.

[DebtDeflation]

Totally agree. Even the 3.5 years in the role that Pat Gelsinger got was insufficient to see his strategies come to fruition. At this point it's baked and there's not much anyone can do. My point isn't to assign credit/blame, it's simply to point out that Intel will not survive in its current form if they are not shipping 18A products by this time next year.

[brookst]

Agree you can’t evaluate entirely on ship date, but you can evaluate on how well the company handles either the last year of development or pivoting and adapting if it’s late. It’s challenging times at Intel, lots of opportunity for a CEO to show great leadership either in success or adversity.

[pwarner]

Agreed, and to the sibling comment who ponders if the new CEO is too late to influence this... He may be. But he needs to decide if he thinks it can be solved, and if not immediately push the fab business out. Even if it gets pushed out to bankruptcy or sold for $1. I own some Intel stock so I sure hope it works, but they need to take urgent action if it's not...

[BoredPositron]

He is exactly there to be knifed after he cut intel into easy to sell pieces.

[justahuman74]

Yeah I hope they negotiated a really nice severance package in the employment contract

[KerrAvon]

seems to be the case