IBM is Not a Leftist Company, the "I" Stands for Imperialism, and Poo Floats to the Top
In thelayoff.com, people recently discussed Darío Gil in relation to his sheer hypocrisy, invading countries for oil (the current role is clear about this) while preaching leftist ideas/ideals to IBM staff. Bear this in mind when observing the true motivation of bombing Venezuela and kidnapping the state:
He has just been mentioned again:
Dario’s Dream
Dario wanted desperately to be part of this administration. We should all remember that — especially as the headlines keep piling up, from the bizarre fixation on invading Greenland to the heavy-handed actions playing out in Minnesota, and everything that came before. This is what our leaders at IBM are really like, the character and integrity the company ultimately fosters. He saw this, knew this kind of behavior was happening or had already happened, and still chose to join. He would stand on stage in Yorktown and proudly, even boastfully, claim to be a champion of lofty ideals — yet he decided to align himself with an administration that stands in stark contrast to those very principles of integrity, respect, and responsible leadership. Think about that.
IBM never stood for "integrity, respect, and responsible leadership." Since its earliest days it has done eugenics and death camps for profit. It's not an ethical company. It's "international" only in the sense that it would work with anyone, even with literal Nazis and banned companies.
The company does not even trust or treat its own staff well, especially whistleblowers (there were American whistleblowers who complained IBM worked for the Nazis).
What's good is that there's growing recognition of how two-faced IBM is, no matter the ethnicity of the managers.
One hour ago in Bengaluru:
Just like at Red Hat and other IBM businesses. Earlier we shared a complaint aired about the likes of Red Hat not getting what they need to succeed. There's a followup which explains this phenomenon and invokes the Dunning-Kruger effect:
The counter argument is younger talents tend to overestimate their capabilities and performance is not commensurate with attitude -- Dunning-Kruger is real. The 1st or 2nd level manager is pushed by upper mgmt to grow and utilize young talent but at the same time is also responsible for deadlines. He/she realizes that the expectation is to train younger talent to replace experienced talent in future but the project is doomed unless experienced talent is properly utilized and incentivized. Managers do their best to balance the requirements for project success wrt the interests of upper mgmt, which can be unrealistic. The best experienced employees usually quit, they always have options...
The Dunning–Kruger effect, as wikipedia puts it, "is a cognitive bias that describes the systematic tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. The term may also describe the tendency of high performers to underestimate their skills. It was first described by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is sometimes misunderstood as claiming that people with low intelligence are generally overconfident, instead of describing the specific overconfidence of people unskilled at particular areas."
Sounds like the CEO, AK. Remember that AK is military from both sides of his family. █