Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other. It's actually kind of depressing that we (and I include myself in that) assume otherwise by default.
I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money. Often, the internal operations, are disappointingly bad, just not bad enough to kill the corp fast.

Source: I've worked in and with many successful organizations, and worked at one place with proper internal processes, so I know what's possible

I have observed that also. Though I'm still not sure whether: 1) there are some small pockets where important decisions are made, innovation happens and the needle is moved, and dysfunction I see is just justified bloat of the company 2) it is the entire corporation like that but it somehow works at the end.
loading story #50418743
loading story #50417397
I'm no longer in that industry, but as I recall there are actually rules imposing independence from investment banking and research arms, for example. Dates back to the Dot Com era where research analysts were touting IPOs for the investment banking division.
loading story #50418455
In this case, both decisions are weighty enough that they should be made at the very top, by the same people.
Really? You think executives at GS waste their time debating where software should be installed on trading desk computers? They have entire departments dedicated to handling those issues...
ANT was expected to be the largest IPO ever, it may still raise more money than SpaceX, so this is an incredibly consequential deal for GS.

Restricting Ant's primary revenue driver across a broad swath of GS weeks before trading would trigger immediate leadership review. What organizational background and level of experience are you extrapolating?

loading story #50421972
loading story #50417977
loading story #50417666
> In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other.

I don't agree at all. Different groups should be supporting each other and the overall bottom line instead of their parochial, narrow self-interests - the latter is a poorly functioning org.

If by group A delaying its $100M cost-cutting, group B can add $1B to the bottom line, it would be a corporate and group management failure for group A not to cooperate.

[flagged]
A well functioning org happens regularly. A well-functioning world is far more difficult.
loading story #50416559
What was the point of this comment?
loading story #50416278
loading story #50416486
loading story #50416497
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Also what’s your point? Goldman Sachs shouldn’t pull Claude Code because there’s no point in trying in this world and we should all give up on everything?

Kind of an odd strawman