There were two groups that could receive a bailout - owners of the bank, so the bank could survive, and depositors who had deposits larger than the insured amount. Only the latter received a bailout and were made whole beyond their level of insurance.
I always thought it was something like a comparison between ballistae with fewer shots and larger arrows (javelin size, really) doing more damage, and a storm of smaller regular arrows. Maybe I was being too generous with my interpretation.
> The background seems an oft-used phrase in Sun Microsystems by the former CEO, "all the wood behind a single arrow" which means focus on a single product and be the best in it.
> When deer hunting .. "Real men bring only one arrow. They know how to aim (and they remember to take plenty of time when aiming), and they put all the wood behind that one arrow."
They even managed to find a usage of the same space of metaphor from Apple!
> While the layoffs are intended to reduce operating costs, Apple said it trimmed its technology portfolio to streamline development efforts. “Time to market is very important to me,” Amelio said. “With the narrowing of our focus, we can put more wood behind the arrow.”
> —Stephen Howard, “Narrowing tech focus, Apple cuts 4,100 jobs,” MacWeek, March 17, 1997
Yes in the world of Finance, but the word has a different meaning, in the mind of said Depositors...The word is used by Government and Banks, as a misdirection into a false sense of security.
Progress in science as I understand is only on the shoulders of giants (previous research), not starting over from first principles with every generation. If we did that we'd get nowhere, each generation would get to the wheel or so and then the next one would start over.
I don't think gp is talking about continuous refinement of ideas, which I get the sense is more what you meant. Spending time and energy reinventing cubicles again and again every 10 or so years seems best to avoid, in my opinion.
Sometimes. Other times (most times?) it seems like a kind of reactionary contrarian arrogance that people who have done/studied/experienced X surely have no idea what they are talking about and be dismissed by anyone who has experience with computers.
Having been around for cubicles, its surprising to see them described by a new generation as some kind of utopian ideal. Even if they are round now, instead of square. Roundicles?
Best not think too much about what we will call the ones for the test team.
I remember in the 90s, when I was a teenager, my Dad's work at Allergan (in Irvine, Orange County, California, not far from Blizzard's office) had a cubicle layout. Sometimes he took me inside, and it was just terrible. This was also one of the themes of Office Space, an excellent movie making fun of workplace culture (starring Jennifer Aniston and Ron Livingston). In one memorable scene of the movie, after Livingston's character has had enough of the toxic workplace culture and stops giving a fuck, he unscrews the cubicle walls so he can see out the window from his desk.
I would definitely prefer to work in an open-office environment vs cubicles. I also don't want an office, because I don't even want to go to work regularly anymore.
The best option for me would be: (i) go to work 2-3 times a week to get out of the house (ii) hot desk open office layout with (iii) lots of meeting rooms.
> I would definitely prefer to work in an open-office environment vs cubicles.
That's fine as long as you understand that for certain types of people and/or certain types of work - open plan can be a disaster. This discussion has been bouncing back and forth for decades.
Personally speaking my coding productivity drops something like 80% in an open plan office.
It's so true. 80% gets lost but you feel like you've done so much more just getting to the office by the time you arrive your job is to kill time. You can now bother others all day and look productive.
The issue isn't that cubicles are good, they aren't. The issue is that open office plans are worse. If your work is calls and emails that can be chopped up in 10 minute increments then an open office is great because that how long you can concentrate between distractions, if you need to think they are productivity killers that would give mandatory shots every 10 minutes a run for their money.
We have oscillated back and forth with each being the exciting new solution for what sucks about the other for decades, though. This is just the latest swing of the pendulum to one or the other.
I guess they are round now, maybe that was the one missing ingredient that means we will be on cubicles forever and everyone will finally understand why they are better?
