Probably not a popular take, but it's fairly common to have CEO's for big company who where never part of the production of one of the product they company sells. The idea is that at some point, your business is so large and oversee too many projects. Intuition, and experience doesn't cut it. Big firm want rationalization. This is why management become obsess with metrics, KPI and such. It rationalizes business decision.
This won't be business that innovate, but that's not what their investor wants. Shareholders at EA want predictable reasonable growth, and governance match that. You don't get brought up by EA, Microsoft, Activision, etc, and then act surprise that management want you to produce "generic AAA game with a coat of paint based on X popular franchise".
Innovation and risk taking is something that smaller business do.
That business model is at odds with any creative enterprise. It's one thing to scale a business that has a successful product that needs very little improvement over time other than efficiency gains which can be handled by a management class whose only involvement needs to be ensuring the core model is maintained and not degraded while improving operational efficiency. It's a very different thing to having to constantly innovate and create new and better products especially when those products need their own artistic merit to stand on. If you're just making the next FIFA game you'll be fine but anything that requires a plot will go over like a lead balloon.
Yes, it's the industrialization of culture. The music and movie industry shows us exactly how that works out. Big major and big studio don't innovate, they sell you well known name, reinforce it with marketing, and buy up the latest trend from smaller studio. Nothing new under the sun. Company like EA or Activision will continue to buy smaller studio that managed to get a few decent game going, will milk the franchise while its popular, then get rid of it.
That's true. They've discovered that strategy works since they can use their strengths (concentrated capital, business knowledge, lawyers, distribution system) to profit off of their competition and destroy them at the same time. It's a pretty terrible outcome for players since it destroys small studios which in the past would have used the funds from their previous success to develop more ambitious creative projects. Now those future products get managed to death and are less artistically interesting because they can't rock the boat.
There is very few companies where the executives don't engage with their own product. Imaging a film studio where the CEO has never watched a movie, or a publishing house where the CEO doesn't read books.
I don't think you need to enjoy the product personally but you do need to engage with the medium at the very least to be able to understand what you are selling and to whom you should listen for feedback.
Yes, but in the interview he was talking about creating games, not consuming. I am pretty sure that CEO at those big companies probably have played game in their life. They might not be hardcore gamer who fire up Dota 2 after work, but they likely engage with the medium. I mean, the current EA CEO has had a long career being involved in the sport division of EA.
There are examples like back in February when Chris Kempczinski posted his infamous sampling of a McDonald's meal (even though he apparently does eat McDonalds regularly, he didn't put on a very good show of it). Steve Jobs famously not letting his kids use iPads. Howard Moskowitz initially refusing to drink soda during an interview and saying "I'm not a soda drinker. It's not good for your teeth." and then when persuaded to do so describing it as terrible and overwhelming. The most relevant one would be Strauss Zelnick who said in a 2025 interview "I'm not a gamer. I don't play videogames at all. I'm not the Consumer-in-Chief." justifying it by saying that his job is to hire talented developers and let them make the decisions but I would question whether you can choose the right talent if you don't understand the audience for the products they'll make.
It's very easy for executives and management to be so disconnected from the people who make up the market they are serving. When success is determined by innovation that serves that market, detachment can be a fatal flaw.
That kind of stuff is why the film industry has cycles of actors starting production companies, overturning the hierarchy with their money and successes, followed by them getting bored, selling out, the business becoming more businesslike until they start forking enough money to actors again that they again can produce their own stuff.
Netflix and co, might upend or stall that cycle, same as Steam/MS/etc can stagnate the games business.
I think games still has a cycle or two before being totally stagnant though, but regulators are working hard to fix that.
On the other hand, FromSoftware, creators of games such as dark souls, bloodborne, and elden ring, placed their main director as CEO. He still directs their main games, and admits to focus more on games than on business.
The trend has been they focus on quality, rarely compromising their vision, which started as niche gameplay ideas that are now a new genre, adopted in many new games. And the effect has been that they got a reputation for quality, and sell more and more games with each new release, with elden ring selling like 36M copies.
FromSoft has less than 500 employees. They are a big studio, but still a studio. They are not a publisher with a large portfolio like EA or Activision, MS, etc. Different business, different governance. FromSoft is owned by kadokawa, who's current CEO is an MBA dude.
That's not the question here. But regardless, it doesn't matter what we need, it's what the system incentivizes. Being the owner of a studio, even a big successful one like FromSoftware, comes with a lot of risk. One bad game and everything can go tits up. Studio owners therefor often have an interest in “derisking” by selling of part of the company ownership. The buyers are often publishers who see those studios as supplier and need to secure their delivery for a while, diversify, etc. This is exactly like the music and movie industries (or any cultural industry in general).
I mean, even in the software industry, this is the modus opperandi for a lot of business : Founder of startup focus on the product and growth until they become valuable enough to be brought up by one of the big company.
I think Innovation in big companies does happen, but often it get's stiffled by the bean counters before something comes by it, but that is also a good thing. Small businesses should always have the potential to bring the goliath to its knees if the big business has outlived is usefulness to society as a whole.
What? It seems very doable for people who are interested in it, are you one of those people? Because it sure seems like you're trying your hardest to not find the answer yourself.
First off, there is a difference between “I come from a decent country and therefor have no real reason to take the risk of illegally immigrating somewhere” and "My country is very, very bad (possibly in not small part due to country X), and moving to country X illegally is less risky for my life and family than staying here". We tend to have at least some empathy for people in the second scenario.
But even never minding that, you could say a lot of things : The U.S.A is a country literally built by immigrants. The native-american are a minority in their own land. So is it surprising that a lot of people in an immigrant country support immigrant ? Then, there is the dirty economic secret that illegal immigration fill the low-wages jobs that citizen don't have to lower themselves too. A lot of ties, rule of law, etc. Of all country, it is weird that the U.S is turning anti-immigration.
Helping refugees makes sense, but should existing laws be changed or broken? (there's a big difference). It feels like many smart people are advocating the latter, which appears at odds with their behaviour and attitudes in most other domains (i.e. law abiding). Also, what makes refugees specifically the US's responsibility? E.g. verifying, processing and integrating refugees puts strain on domestic systems, and strain scales with volume.
Smart people know that "the law" has little to do with morality, and vastly more to do with power. When evil people are in power, they make evil laws, and when you have evil laws, it is immoral to follow them. Following the law is never moral in it's own right; Legality, even in the best of times, only strives to shadow morality.
I've never met someone who wouldn't prefer to change the law rather than be forced to violate them. But only cowards and the intellectually incapable think that supporting the enforcement of an unjust law while campaigning for it's fix is someone a morally superior stance.
And to answer why America? Because if we can't do it, nobody can. What kind of yellow-bellied, unpatriotic attitude can you have to think "oh, let's just let some better country solve the problems we've created in the world through prolonged geopolitical control over the 20th century". Fuck that. If America is great enough to conquer the world, it should be great enough to solve the side effects that come with it.
Some people DO advocate for better laws. It doesn't mean that it will pass. At then end of the day, you have to convince enough people to vote for people who want to make it a law, or make enough noise and be an enough electoral power that politician wants to do it. But, while a lot of people care about immigration and such, at the end of the day, some other issues (the typical example is the cost of living), might take precedences.
> Also, what makes refugees specifically the US's responsibility? E.g. verifying, processing and integrating refugees puts strain on domestic systems, and strain scales with volume.
I think nobody said it's the U.S responsibility, in spirit. Factually it is by the fact that they have to handle it and international laws. But that is why country sometimes collaborate on those issues. The U.S and Mexico do collaborate on immigration issue. Mexico do stop a lot of south american immigrant from reaching the U.S border. But the border is huge. There is also other ways to get in, legally or illegally. You can't possibly stop everything. And it is the burden you get when you are a rich country. The U.S is not the only one. And mind you, the U.S and Western European country have benefitted a lot from exploiting the people and resources in poor country and pushing allied authoritarian regime there. Immigration is but a small cost they pay for what they did, and got.
Economic migrants are by far the majority in the US. In fact, economic migrants abusing “asylum” have basically made it impossible for the immigration authorities to have a sane asylum policy.
It's really not. Even without considering Alsace Lorraine, there is a lot of people with German origin in France. In general, it's very common to see people with family name from Spain, Italy, … And also from the old colonies / protectorate like Lebanon or Vietnam.
I find it very funny when people put the link of their company in their bio (that's fine and normal) and next to it the ARR it brings (who cares ??). It *really* makes you look like those influencer-entrepreneur-scammer who claim to have 10 side projects making 2B ARR but still somehow spend their time selling you courses on how to be like them instead of taking care of their companies.
Your client do NOT care about your ARR (well to an extent), so why is it something you are so keen on advertising
it's called building in public, e.g. see http://trustmrr.com. they're not putting it there for clients, but for others in the huge community of indie hackers/saas entrepeneurs on x
The pop culture makes you think cybersecurity is wearing black clothes, having wild tatoos and jacking-in the matrix with a dripped up thinkpad while at the back of a nightclub. Turns out, its wearing suit, and showing slide to corporate begging them to have a review process for their firewall and a decommission plan for their 20 years old services made in java 6 and never updated.
True, but I am talking about the whole vibe of security as an industry and how the corporatization of defcon shapes it. The primary issue with security, it is difficult to show efficacy. It is akin to proving a negative. If you are doing your job, no one notices until they have laid you off. You need to be loud, flashy, dangerous, brash to stick around. So now the ecosystem breeds for a signal isn't related to how qualified one was at security.
Kind of hard to understand how a bug would have generated a second pair of key so bad, and how would human would have ended up using them. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, but sometimes you wonder.
And an equal amount of stupidity in the whole ecosystem, apparently there are no "unit-tests" for trivial failure modes, like 8 bits of entropy, before adding a CA to the trusted list.
What next, googling the public key finds a 2 year old pastebin with the private key?
I'm still flabergasted the HSM allowed this key to be generated. Then again, I've worked with HSMs, there are always many mistakes in the firmware, usually less severe though.
It seems there was some issue with the ceremony with some wrapping/unwrapping scripts.
They explicitly said they wanted to export the keys from the HSM; the keys were intended for USA/Europe (for sovereignty reasons) but were never actually used.
It seems the HSM itself worked, their ceremony around wrapping/unwrapping didn't.
I'm sure the Utimaco's used (haven't worked with one) also allow all slots to contain the same name or keys with the same name and the device always selecting the first one if you only provide the name and not the slot ID or token identifier. Don't ask how I found out the hard way.
There is something called "wrapping/unwrapping" - you encrypt the key, move it to the other HSM, and it unwraps it. So what moves around is encrypted. I don't know enough about HSMs to tell you if it's done using symetric or asymetric crypto, but no the key should not move around in the plaintext.
The write-up from eMudhra mentions something about wrapping/unwrapping ceremony failing.
They were referring to the comment they were replying to, which claimed that the original code was written (by humans) as poorly as AI does today. But AI today wouldn't write bugs that basic.
Innovation and risk taking is something that smaller business do.
reply