Second paragraph dives straight into corporate quarterly bonus bullet point bullshit! What about the human! This is easily the worst in memoriam I think I've ever seen. Written by some HR droid? What an embarrassment, I think I just discovered why I'd never, ever work for Intel
Getting outraged over a paragraph detailing someone's professional accomplishments in their professional obituary...It's Intel's article on their former CEO's death, what's it supposed to do, detail his personal life?
An obituary should detail a man and /his/ life rather than his relationship to a company, I understand how some people think this is justifiable, but I also just find it grotesque in every way. I know nothing more about him than I did prior to reading, or whether he achieved any kind of satisfaction in his personal life, which I think is kinda the point of these things.
Quarterly OKRs for a millionaire? I really hope they weren't the entirety of his existence, otherwise we're all doomed
Disagree. Just because they are business accomplishments doesn't mean that they are without value. He likely worked incredibly hard to achieve those results. Why shouldn't they be recognized along with his mentoring and philanthropic works?
I don't know if they've since edited it or what, but it currently describes plenty about how "the human" is the reason for those numbers. It reads to me like a recognition of Otellini's successes as CEO.
my dad worked for the federal government. The federal government harassed him in the workplace for being a whistleblower. He sued the federal government. The stress of the lawsuit deteriorated his health. He died one year after retiring.
Sorry for your loss. But at least he cleared his conscience. Sorry he had to go through the stress as well. It might take decades, but they will reap what they sow.
Honestly, I doubt that they will reap what they sow. I repeatedly told him to give up on the case specifically for the reason, so he should have known what he was getting into. I'm also not terribly sad at his death, I think it's just my personality. Thank you for your consideration.
I hope to work at the same company for the rest of my life, raise my kids, vacation regularly with my wife, then die. I would be completely content with a 'boring' life.
I'm the same. Take risks? No thanks. Give me boring any day. The last time we took the kids to Disneyland I realized that I'm more of a Jungle Cruise kind of guy than that Indiana Jones ride.
Many philosophers thought so, but there are other pursuits. The philosophy of virtue (not in the biblical sense) describes one such alternative. The teachings of the virtue ethics can be perceived to mean that your pursuit should be mastery of any one (or number) of subject(s) and/or character traits. Mastery would be the perfect marriage between effort, preparation and result (or in the case of ethics, the perfect life in balance, cultivating the good in you).
There are as many reasons to do things as there are people do do them ;)
Happiness was simply a proxy for whatever your intrinsic goals in life are; unless risk itself is your intrinsic goal, the goal itself doesn't change my argument.
He joined out of school then climbed to CEO. That's damned impressive.
It would take commitment, grit, skill, and so much more to do that. It's not like he was a mindless pencil pusher in the same dead-end job his whole life.
>Maybe he was happy-as-a-clam there but spending your entire adult life having (seemingly) never taken a risk.
If he was able to climb the ladder to become the CEO, he probably took some very big risks and had a very big target on his back. The risks are just different from moving from one company to another.
I've worked at different large companies and met plenty of people who only did exactly what was asked for them. They barely took any risks. Every few years they got a standard promotion as per HR policy, but ultimately their career trajectory stalled. There's nothing wrong with that, but somebody who can climb to be a CEO of a company like Intel surely took some risks and did something to stand out?
Intel has made some risky moves and bad bets since he became an executive (1990?), and even further back when he was hired. Pentium 4, XScale, and Itanium come to my mind.
Intel hasn't been a tiny start up for decades. You can do many different things inside a large company that is in so many markets. Just because someone stays at the same company for their entire career doesn't mean that they were riding the gravy train the entire time.
You're hitting the nail on the head here. When I interned at Intel, they constantly said that even if you aren't happy in your current role once you are full time, you can always transfer teams and do something wildly different since the company is so large. So you can effectively 'job hop', but within the same company.
Imagine having multiple jobs where you are recognized and have the type of impact that transforms the entire world. In this case all of that happened at one company. He probably had enough money to retire well before the time he did, so I assume he enjoyed something about working there? So maybe he didn't feel bad he only had 4 years of retirement?
The person you responded to isn't saying he would have been fine with dying today. They're saying that working at Intel his entire life isn't something that he was likely bothered by. If he wanted to retire or change companies, he had many opportunities to do so.
I didn't say that's what the parent was saying. Comically you're misconstruing what I think the parent said.
I said, very clearly, that speculating on whether Paul would be ok with just having four years of retirement, is pointless speculation and impolite - or worse - toward the family he left behind. It is. A few seconds of thinking in empathy first, would prevent the entire discussion over what Paul may or may not have been interested in. Frankly, I don't even like having to explain the obviousness of how crude this conversation is.
To be clear, it's not an issue of whether discussing retirement matters in general in this thread is obnoxious. It's about speculating on Paul's specific choices or preferences. That is obnoxious.
Steve Jobs died soon after he retired. And working at (nearly) the same company / dreams his entire adult life. Or more like he was forced to retire due to his health.
But Apple Park. As if He wasn't gonna let death get in the way of his Dream.
From reading books and listening to his talks he gave on life, I am sure he didn't regret it one bit.
“I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.” - Steve Jobs.
> “I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.” - Steve Jobs.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's also very easy for someone as financially secure as Jobs to make that call.
99.99% of people on this site will die and their employers won't care at all (whether they should or not is another story). I'd say if he worked hard and long enough to get recognition he was probably pretty happy with what he did and/or the outcome of his efforts.
Sure. Depends though where you work: at my firm, a publicly traded healthcare services company, when the last person passed away it was a big deal and everyone knew about it.
Some people work on a farm for all their lives. Some people stay at home with their kids and don't work. Some people tend to a monastery and meditate all their days. And on and on and on.
The companies where people spent their careers aren’t like the ones today where everyone job hops. You grew with the company, and often, the company supported your growth because it was expected that it would grow its talent in house. And you didn’t give up 100% of your life to the company in a continuous sprint trying to get to the big exit.
My dad worked for the same company for 25 years. He helped it grow and benefited from that growth by moving up internally, and he had enough time left over to raise a family. When he left at 60 to consult and start his own company, it’s not like he’d spent the previous 25 years in a sprint with nothing to show for it.
26 year old Intel employee here. Totally get where you're coming from but would like to mention that Intel is a gigantic company. I know 20+ year vets who have had 3-4 different careers here. From the comments floating around in our internal network it seems like Paul had a pretty dynamic career.
My biggest concern is folks dying soon after retirement. It's pretty scary to envision working for 40+ years and not be able to enjoy retirement.
Don't plan to live your life when you retire. You will spend the majority of your life working, so better make sure you find something you enjoy. Live today.
not that interesting, invested $400k, ran it up over a million while living off it, got squeezed by high expenses (two 15 year mortgages and $200k in therapy bills for autistic daughter) right when market crashed, made a couple hundred thousand playing poker, realized that sucked, started app business, first app took off well but teetered out, now i work for the man.
Wow. Saddens me. I had the opportunity to meet Paul a couple of times when I worked at Intel. Paul always impressed me as a great executive and a great person.
I have long believed that Paul is the best post-Grove CEO that Intel has had. Otellini was as good of a CEO as Grove, better in certain ways (consumer marketing instincts). His tenure was not as long as Grove's and is under-appreciated for that reason only.
He seems to have led a winderful and impactful life but it's a little shocking when so many people in the news, who seemingly led healthy lives, pass away in their 60s . :(
If the average life expectancy in the US is 78 years, that means there are plenty of people who might live to be 90, perhaps even beyond 100 and many who will die anywhere between childhood and that average number.
Sadly, many interpret this to be that they will live to be that magic average number, and either get caught off-guard when time is up sooner (perhaps regretting having neglected family time / travel / personal stuff), or unprepared in the case they live 20 years beyond what their savings had projected to last.
I second this. I know a lot of elders who are fairly active outdoor and indoor seem to do better, much like plants need sunlight and fresh air. My grandma used to live in China by herself and her parish was only a few doors down. When she finally came to live with us in the U.S., she still go to church every morning, but she has to walk two blocks. After a few months, her walking has improved, and crane is now optional on the good sunny days. She eats well too (compared to what she would eat in China..) She's 88 years old today.
For many years, Chinese elders are recommended to go to senior citizen clubs, play chess games and Mahjong, do TaiChi or something alike, for better physical and mental health. The unfortunate side of the reality is many elders are disabled and have no one to get them where they need to be except getting help from senior assistance. I hope more families can spend more time with their elderly.
I'm less concerned with when I punch out than with how I punch out.
The thing that scares me more than physical infirmity (and I can say this with a degree of certainty since I have a serious spine condition that at one point could have meant a wheelchair) is mental infirmity.
Terry Pratchett (and others) had it right, We should be allowed to choose our end time while we are in sound mind.
That we don't have Euthanasia in most 'modern' societies I think is insane.
> That we don't have Euthanasia in most 'modern' societies I think is insane.
An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe.
I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows. Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother should just take a pain pill", if you recall that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama.
So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case. I'll oppose such self-hating foolishness. If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.
You didn't so much as step onto that slippery slope as strap on some ski's and make it an Olympic event.
> An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe.
So are most major issues society has to deal with.
> I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows.
Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded)
> So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people.
Not sure how you got there from my post but for what it is worth, I don't - I want the opinion of the person in sound mind backed up by competent medical professionals to be respected as a matter of body autonomy, We don't get to force surgery on adults of sound mind for example and here in the UK other things are regulated in a similar system - I can choose not to have surgery that will kill me if I don't have it, that's fine but I can't choose the manner of my death, it seems contradictory to me, We put animals that are suffering to sleep because it's humane but we don't extend the same right to humans who are capable of asking for it and yes there are arguments against but nothing is perfect, the question I always ask is "in aggregate does this benefit people" if you wait around for the perfect solution you end up not implementing a 'merely' better one.
> If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.
And if we don't, don't be surprised when the secret Martian master race turn up and harvest your essence....
> Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded)
Hm, this is not selling me on your system.
You've already surrendered your freedoms. Take whatever you can get, I guess? Go strike in the streets if you don't get enough care? I am sorry for you; I just hope we (in the US) don't go your way.
> We put animals that are suffering to sleep ...
You are merely an animal, then? You have resigned yourself to the meat grinder. I prefer to take a more enlightened view of what it means to be human and how special human life is.
Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply
roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother
should just take a pain pill", if you recall
that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama.
If I'm of sound mind and choose to die, then who are you to stop me in the name of "preserving life"? Life has value, but so do personal rights. Every human has the right to life. I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up.
> So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case.
That's the exact opposite of what is being discussed here: Murder is a disgusting violation of personal rights.
You can do whatever you want with your body. The law has no control over you ending it all. Do not resuscitate orders and the like are all yours to set, too. Make a will, tell your loved ones what your wishes are so they don't pull the plug prematurely.
My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid.
I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways.
The problem of euthanasia is thorny because abstract arguments in-favor are very dangerous. "I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up" is not very specific. I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
> My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid.
> I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc.
Me too (and I hope I made that clear in my previous comment).
> I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways.
They seem to work out pretty well in places like Switzerland.
> I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
In the context of an informal online discussion, I don't see the point in agonizing over the exact wording; I feel that my intent was clear enough in the context of the thread. If someone is of a sound mind, and wishes to end their life through euthanasia, they have the right to do it.
I don't see the "euthanasia" part itself as the "thorny" bit. The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law. But that's the nature of the law; provide protection for citizen's rights, and preventing abuse of those rights.
> I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break.
> I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break.
Fair point. I impute a lot of selfish motives when I hear what I consider to be ambiguous pro-euthanasia arguments.
> The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law.
I appreciate you trying to corner this argument with some specifics. I can't convince you, but my contention is that mutable laws and under-manned/inept/corrupt officials can never provide the type of sustained protections for the helpless that I think you're envisioning. Just knowing how loop-holey and unjust so much of American law is, I urge caution.
>Survival increased across the full range of gait speeds, with significant increments per 0.1 m/s. At age 75, predicted 10-year survival across the range of gait speeds ranged from 19% to 87% in men and from 35% to 91% in women. Predicted survival based on age, sex, and gait speed was as accurate as predicted based on age, sex, use of mobility aids, and self-reported function or as age, sex, chronic conditions, smoking history, blood pressure, body mass index, and hospitalization.
I visited my 95 year old grandmother this past Sunday. She was up and moving around the entire time except when sitting down to eat the delicious lunch she had insisted on cooking for us. Her hearing is starting to go, but her eyesight is still fine and her mental faculties are razor sharp. She still lives on her own and can get around just fine.
Part of it is surely genetic. Her father lived to be nearly 105 and was 100% healthy physically and mentally until 2 weeks before he died when he developed shingles and got sores in his mouth that made it difficult to eat so he stopped eating and died. He was still breaking horses into his late-80s.
I also wonder if it was something to do with how she was raised. She grew up on a ranch and spent a lot of time outdoors tending the cows and sheep We were visiting the old property this summer and she told us we should go on a hike to see a waterfall up a canyon where she once had to retrieve a flock of lost sheep - it was one of the most difficult hikes I've ever been on and I can't believe she did it and brought back the sheep while still a young girl. They made them tougher back in those days I guess.
My grandfather on one side was a farmer and lived to 88. My other grandfather was a pharmacist in Pittsburgh, lived amongst all its coal pollution and not particularly active in the same way, and he lived to 100.
She isn't active now, but up until a few years ago, she was the primary caregiver for my father, who had Alzheimer's. It kept her busy. She also spent a lot of time on fixing healthy food.
Totally unscientific, but I think it's conspicuous that is right around retirement. Maybe people who are living on sheer determination lose their purpose. Maybe people who need to be busy are suddenly bored out of their minds. Maybe work kept them moving, and without it they tanked quickly.
I have no real proof, but I'll be prodding my father to find a side job or volunteer work or a really deep hobby as he approaches retirement.
If what you say about deaths rising after retirement is true, it could be the loss of a routine. I suspect (and I also have no evidence for this) that a routine, honed over many years, is important to health. Also, loneliness is highly correlated with increased chance of death. The end of work life could significantly increase loneliness.
or you know, it could have nothing to do with these handwavy claims and instead, he may have had a terminal illness, in part triggered by years of extreme stress and super hard work.
Is it not also possible that a driven person retires because, perhaps subconsciously, they recognize symptoms that both impair their continued performance and portend their imminent demise?
My father is a doctor. He is in his 70s and works 60 hour weeks at the Native American reservation clinic that he started working at after he retired and built his dream home out in the middle of nowhere. He claims that a 60 hour work week is retirement for a doctor. He certainly doesn't need the money, but says he will continue showing up at the clinic till he dies.
Well, they didn't have a competing product at the time. Atom on phones is kinda new, and I'm not sure it would fit Apple's requirements of battery life, etc
Intel had an ARM chip division for Phone CPUs called XScale from 2002 to 2006 when they sold it to Marvell to focus on the more profitable x86 series.[1] He may have believed the x86 Atom chips could replace the XScale.
Xscale was widely used in Palm Treo's, Sony Clie's most Compaq Poquet PC's and the original Amazon Kindle.
His "biggest regret" comment is pure rewriting of history.
He made the wrong decision to get out of phone CPUs.
This is probably one of the biggest blunders in Intel's history.
Indeed. My father died a few years ago, at age 64. His death could have been avoided, had he simply gone to the doctor regularly to get a health check-up as he died due to atherosclerosis and we didn't know he had that. I don't know about other countries, but here in Denmark guys are notoriously bad at going to the doctor, unless we're really sick, according to various physicians. Point is, go to your doctor and get checked on a regular basis, even if you feel fine.
This might be a tad off-topic for HN, but the dates seem like an odd coincidence: I am noticing that, per Wikipedia, Otellini was born 8 days before Tom Petty, and they died on the same day.
Edit: it may be a silly observation I have made, but hn users are really silly to downvote this.
And born a week and some change apart? In a first world country where 66 is certainly no spring chicken but considered just a tad too young to die?
I disagree with your assessment. I think this place is just full of people who are too easily offended by non tech topics appearing, and think perhaps that if they were at their own deathbed they'd look back and be glad they moved to discourage some random dope that casually compared the day's news to another headline. Very smug and lacking in social perspective.
He was a very nice person who I greatly liked but as an alumni I'm saddened at the architectural missteps that plagued the company such as the Pentium 4 architecture changes that otherwise cost billions of shareholder value. There was a vocal part of engineering who were disappointed a finance guy was in charge for the first time.
This might be trying to put a post facto positive spin on a disaster, but I always heard from people involved with NetBurst that they learned a lot of lessons from that debacle that were applied to make Core as good as it was, and that without those it wouldn’t have been nearly as good. Again, take that all with a grain of salt, but maybe the P4 was a necessary step to get all the pretty-good chips that came afterward.
Besides, if you’re looking for screw-ups that hammered Intel’s shareholder value, I don’t think the P4 is even in the top 3. Selling XScale and missing the boat on ARM was much worse.
I still dot get that. I can see how they made that move based on the situation at the time, but if not with the iPhone then by 2010 at least with the iPad launch they must have seen how much things had changed. It also was far from too late to pivot back into ARM. Look what Apple managed to do in just a few years starting from scratch. It’s not as if Intel worked out an alternative strategy either, if so where is it now? They’ve still effectively got nothing worthwhile in the mobile space after a decade.
I can see that from a margins perspective. Even if it were profitable it would depress Intel's ASP, but the strategic risk is also an issue. Apple now ships more processors than Intel. ARM chips have already appeared in Chromebooks and are feeling for a toehold in data centres. All I'm saying is Intel needs a counter to this threat.
I interned at Intel in 2002. We (all the interns) were invited to hear him speak. At the time, I didn't know who we was, but he was some exec and, well, it's always cool to listen to execs.
I don't remember much of his speech, but when I remember most was bumping into him in the stairwell on my way to the speech. My eyes landed on his badge, and I said something like, "hey, I'm about to go listen to you talk."
We had one of the most friendly conversations I had.
122 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadQuarterly OKRs for a millionaire? I really hope they weren't the entirety of his existence, otherwise we're all doomed
FWIW that's impressive to me. Apple is probably one of their larger customers, and the deal could've gone to AMD instead.
Business accomplishments can be worth praising.
I don't know if they've since edited it or what, but it currently describes plenty about how "the human" is the reason for those numbers. It reads to me like a recognition of Otellini's successes as CEO.
The thought of that, as a 26-year old, terrifies me.
Live around your work, so you are working to enjoy life now, not in the future.
That doesn't mean "slack off" or "can working", it just means find hobbies you enjoy and dedicate yourself as much to them as your work.
Life is pretty fleeting; we plan for a long healthy life and in most cases it does pan out. But you can get super unlucky for whatever reason.
Working at the same company for a long duration? Or dying soon after retiring?
The idea of (seemingly) having never explored other places. He graduated and immediately joined Intel and never left.
Maybe he was happy-as-a-clam there but spending your entire adult life having (seemingly) never taken a risk.
There is obviously a lot of assumption and judgement to this though.
You'll grow out of it once you hit 30.
I hope to work at the same company for the rest of my life, raise my kids, vacation regularly with my wife, then die. I would be completely content with a 'boring' life.
You should only take a risk when the gain is worth it; if you already have what you want, the gain is not worth it.
Also, changing jobs is just one type of risk you can take. Maybe his steady work was his foundation for taking other risks in other parts of his life.
Many philosophers thought so, but there are other pursuits. The philosophy of virtue (not in the biblical sense) describes one such alternative. The teachings of the virtue ethics can be perceived to mean that your pursuit should be mastery of any one (or number) of subject(s) and/or character traits. Mastery would be the perfect marriage between effort, preparation and result (or in the case of ethics, the perfect life in balance, cultivating the good in you).
There are as many reasons to do things as there are people do do them ;)
It would take commitment, grit, skill, and so much more to do that. It's not like he was a mindless pencil pusher in the same dead-end job his whole life.
If he was able to climb the ladder to become the CEO, he probably took some very big risks and had a very big target on his back. The risks are just different from moving from one company to another.
I've worked at different large companies and met plenty of people who only did exactly what was asked for them. They barely took any risks. Every few years they got a standard promotion as per HR policy, but ultimately their career trajectory stalled. There's nothing wrong with that, but somebody who can climb to be a CEO of a company like Intel surely took some risks and did something to stand out?
Intel hasn't been a tiny start up for decades. You can do many different things inside a large company that is in so many markets. Just because someone stays at the same company for their entire career doesn't mean that they were riding the gravy train the entire time.
Imagine having multiple jobs where you are recognized and have the type of impact that transforms the entire world. In this case all of that happened at one company. He probably had enough money to retire well before the time he did, so I assume he enjoyed something about working there? So maybe he didn't feel bad he only had 4 years of retirement?
He had a family, including children. Maybe that pointless speculation isn't appropriate either direction.
I said, very clearly, that speculating on whether Paul would be ok with just having four years of retirement, is pointless speculation and impolite - or worse - toward the family he left behind. It is. A few seconds of thinking in empathy first, would prevent the entire discussion over what Paul may or may not have been interested in. Frankly, I don't even like having to explain the obviousness of how crude this conversation is.
To be clear, it's not an issue of whether discussing retirement matters in general in this thread is obnoxious. It's about speculating on Paul's specific choices or preferences. That is obnoxious.
It's not like there is some societal taboo being broken here.
The trade off between obsessive, 90 hour work weeks that make a CEO, and living for four fucking years afterwards is a discussion worth having.
Was it worth it? Do the family think it was worth it?
There are many retirees who enjoy their emeritus status so they can continue "work".
Steve Jobs died soon after he retired. And working at (nearly) the same company / dreams his entire adult life. Or more like he was forced to retire due to his health.
But Apple Park. As if He wasn't gonna let death get in the way of his Dream.
From reading books and listening to his talks he gave on life, I am sure he didn't regret it one bit.
“I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.” - Steve Jobs.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's also very easy for someone as financially secure as Jobs to make that call.
I'd say that it's probably closer to 100% of us will die.
youarehere.place
Our society is based on work, that's why you should try to get a good one.
Different things fulfill different people.
My dad worked for the same company for 25 years. He helped it grow and benefited from that growth by moving up internally, and he had enough time left over to raise a family. When he left at 60 to consult and start his own company, it’s not like he’d spent the previous 25 years in a sprint with nothing to show for it.
My biggest concern is folks dying soon after retirement. It's pretty scary to envision working for 40+ years and not be able to enjoy retirement.
I have long believed that Paul is the best post-Grove CEO that Intel has had. Otellini was as good of a CEO as Grove, better in certain ways (consumer marketing instincts). His tenure was not as long as Grove's and is under-appreciated for that reason only.
Why is this happening?
Sadly, many interpret this to be that they will live to be that magic average number, and either get caught off-guard when time is up sooner (perhaps regretting having neglected family time / travel / personal stuff), or unprepared in the case they live 20 years beyond what their savings had projected to last.
For many years, Chinese elders are recommended to go to senior citizen clubs, play chess games and Mahjong, do TaiChi or something alike, for better physical and mental health. The unfortunate side of the reality is many elders are disabled and have no one to get them where they need to be except getting help from senior assistance. I hope more families can spend more time with their elderly.
I'm less concerned with when I punch out than with how I punch out.
The thing that scares me more than physical infirmity (and I can say this with a degree of certainty since I have a serious spine condition that at one point could have meant a wheelchair) is mental infirmity.
Terry Pratchett (and others) had it right, We should be allowed to choose our end time while we are in sound mind.
That we don't have Euthanasia in most 'modern' societies I think is insane.
An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe.
I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows. Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother should just take a pain pill", if you recall that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama.
So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case. I'll oppose such self-hating foolishness. If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.
> An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe.
So are most major issues society has to deal with.
> I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows.
Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded)
> So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people.
Not sure how you got there from my post but for what it is worth, I don't - I want the opinion of the person in sound mind backed up by competent medical professionals to be respected as a matter of body autonomy, We don't get to force surgery on adults of sound mind for example and here in the UK other things are regulated in a similar system - I can choose not to have surgery that will kill me if I don't have it, that's fine but I can't choose the manner of my death, it seems contradictory to me, We put animals that are suffering to sleep because it's humane but we don't extend the same right to humans who are capable of asking for it and yes there are arguments against but nothing is perfect, the question I always ask is "in aggregate does this benefit people" if you wait around for the perfect solution you end up not implementing a 'merely' better one.
> If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.
And if we don't, don't be surprised when the secret Martian master race turn up and harvest your essence....
Hm, this is not selling me on your system.
You've already surrendered your freedoms. Take whatever you can get, I guess? Go strike in the streets if you don't get enough care? I am sorry for you; I just hope we (in the US) don't go your way.
> We put animals that are suffering to sleep ...
You are merely an animal, then? You have resigned yourself to the meat grinder. I prefer to take a more enlightened view of what it means to be human and how special human life is.
> So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case.
That's the exact opposite of what is being discussed here: Murder is a disgusting violation of personal rights.
My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid.
I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways.
The problem of euthanasia is thorny because abstract arguments in-favor are very dangerous. "I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up" is not very specific. I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
> I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc.
Me too (and I hope I made that clear in my previous comment).
> I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways.
They seem to work out pretty well in places like Switzerland.
> I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
In the context of an informal online discussion, I don't see the point in agonizing over the exact wording; I feel that my intent was clear enough in the context of the thread. If someone is of a sound mind, and wishes to end their life through euthanasia, they have the right to do it.
I don't see the "euthanasia" part itself as the "thorny" bit. The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law. But that's the nature of the law; provide protection for citizen's rights, and preventing abuse of those rights.
> I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break.
Fair point. I impute a lot of selfish motives when I hear what I consider to be ambiguous pro-euthanasia arguments.
> The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law.
I appreciate you trying to corner this argument with some specifics. I can't convince you, but my contention is that mutable laws and under-manned/inept/corrupt officials can never provide the type of sustained protections for the helpless that I think you're envisioning. Just knowing how loop-holey and unjust so much of American law is, I urge caution.
>Survival increased across the full range of gait speeds, with significant increments per 0.1 m/s. At age 75, predicted 10-year survival across the range of gait speeds ranged from 19% to 87% in men and from 35% to 91% in women. Predicted survival based on age, sex, and gait speed was as accurate as predicted based on age, sex, use of mobility aids, and self-reported function or as age, sex, chronic conditions, smoking history, blood pressure, body mass index, and hospitalization.
Graph of life expectancy vs gait speed: http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/8042/joc05171f2.pn...
Table with confidence intervals: http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/8042/joc05171t2.pn...
Part of it is surely genetic. Her father lived to be nearly 105 and was 100% healthy physically and mentally until 2 weeks before he died when he developed shingles and got sores in his mouth that made it difficult to eat so he stopped eating and died. He was still breaking horses into his late-80s.
I also wonder if it was something to do with how she was raised. She grew up on a ranch and spent a lot of time outdoors tending the cows and sheep We were visiting the old property this summer and she told us we should go on a hike to see a waterfall up a canyon where she once had to retrieve a flock of lost sheep - it was one of the most difficult hikes I've ever been on and I can't believe she did it and brought back the sheep while still a young girl. They made them tougher back in those days I guess.
My dad is 98 and lives a pretty active lifestyle. He jogs 5 miles a day and runs a hobby farm with chickens and sheep and a few acres of vegetables.
But some of it has to be genetic too. His older sister is 106, and my grandmother was 102 when she passed.
It’s kind of amazing to be my age and have a dad who was born in 1919 and a grandma born in 1882.
I’m grateful for having that much knowledge and experience around me.
There are things I’ve allegedly missed out on by having an older dad, but I wouldn’t trade my experience for anything.
And some of us have the notion that money can push your date out further. Then we see CEOs die "early" and realize nobody is an exception.
I have no real proof, but I'll be prodding my father to find a side job or volunteer work or a really deep hobby as he approaches retirement.
Is it not also possible that a driven person retires because, perhaps subconsciously, they recognize symptoms that both impair their continued performance and portend their imminent demise?
I wonder how different Intel would be today if that occurred.
Xscale was widely used in Palm Treo's, Sony Clie's most Compaq Poquet PC's and the original Amazon Kindle.
His "biggest regret" comment is pure rewriting of history.
He made the wrong decision to get out of phone CPUs.
This is probably one of the biggest blunders in Intel's history.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XScale
Probably would be pretty hard to justify, though.
Edit: it may be a silly observation I have made, but hn users are really silly to downvote this.
I disagree with your assessment. I think this place is just full of people who are too easily offended by non tech topics appearing, and think perhaps that if they were at their own deathbed they'd look back and be glad they moved to discourage some random dope that casually compared the day's news to another headline. Very smug and lacking in social perspective.
Besides, if you’re looking for screw-ups that hammered Intel’s shareholder value, I don’t think the P4 is even in the top 3. Selling XScale and missing the boat on ARM was much worse.
I don't remember much of his speech, but when I remember most was bumping into him in the stairwell on my way to the speech. My eyes landed on his badge, and I said something like, "hey, I'm about to go listen to you talk."
We had one of the most friendly conversations I had.