Most high level executives don’t need to understand these things in detail, because they have other people they trust that do understand it.
No, they don’t. They are unable to tell the difference between technical competence and BS. That’s why Elon’s companies are relatively successful despite his autism and mediocre understanding.
Is it possible that the disconnect is that you‘re valuing technical ability over being good at people+management?
US corporate executives are now selected largely for skill at “moral mazes” and I don’t think “being good at people+management” is an entirely accurate description of that. They’re good at dealing with similar people, who—being similar—are also not good at actually doing things.
Powerpoints need to be 5-word phrases because that’s how you should communicate with crowds.
Amazon banning Powerpoint worked out pretty well for it. Maybe all the theorizing about it actually being good was just justification.
But it’s not meant to be read strictly. It’s basically marketing material aimed at a very large crowd
I’d like to believe that, but no. It was not simplification for the common people. It was an accurate overview of how Bill Gates actually understands the technology involved and why he likes it.
It seems like you’re comparing capitalism to some ideal that has never actually been realized. And you can’t actually know if your ideal is feasible or even better in practice unless it’s been tried.
I’m not suggesting copying the Chinese government, but China is doing a better job at a lot of stuff than the USA now—the USA seems to be largely coasting on past success while institutional quality declines.
No, they don’t. They are unable to tell the difference between technical competence and BS. That’s why Elon’s companies are relatively successful despite his autism and mediocre understanding.
US corporate executives are now selected largely for skill at “moral mazes” and I don’t think “being good at people+management” is an entirely accurate description of that. They’re good at dealing with similar people, who—being similar—are also not good at actually doing things.
Amazon banning Powerpoint worked out pretty well for it. Maybe all the theorizing about it actually being good was just justification.
I’d like to believe that, but no. It was not simplification for the common people. It was an accurate overview of how Bill Gates actually understands the technology involved and why he likes it.
I’m not suggesting copying the Chinese government, but China is doing a better job at a lot of stuff than the USA now—the USA seems to be largely coasting on past success while institutional quality declines.