Technology

59693 readers

5283 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1091

Intel's stock drops 30% overnight —company sheds $39 billion in market cap | As of now, Intel's market value is a fraction of Nvidia's worth and less than half of AMD's (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 3 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

275 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Intel's stock dropped around 30% overnight, shaving some $39 billion from the company's market capitalization since rumors of a pending layoff first emerged. The devastating results come after the chip giant reported a loss for the second quarter, complained about yield issues with the Meteor Lake CPU, provided a modest business outlook for the next few quarters, and announced plans to lay off 15,000 people worldwide.

When the NYSE closed on July 31, Intel's market capitalization was $130.86 billion. Then, a report about Intel's massive layoffs was published, and the company's market capitalization dropped sharply to $123.96 billion on August 1. Following Intel's financial report yesterday, the company's capitalization dropped to $91.86 billion. Essentially, Intel has lost half of its capitalization since January. As of now, Intel's market value is a fraction of Nvidia's worth and less than half of AMD's.

As Intel's actions look rather desperate, analysts believe that Intel's challenges are existential. "Intel's issues are now approaching the existential," Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with Bernstein, told Reuters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 196 points 3 months ago (2 children)

These fucking idiots. All they had to do was pretend they gave a fuck about the chip debacle and play everything slowly. They couldn't even do that. They couldn't even pretend to give a fuck about anyone. Neither their customers nor their employees.

If they replaced the C-suite with the custodial staff, they would be in a significantly better position than they are now. Executives are always dumb as fuck, with very few exceptions. Pre-requisites for the job: narcisism, sociopathy and idiocy.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If they replaced the C-suite with the custodial staff, they would be in a significantly better position than they are now. Executives are always dumb as fuck, with very few exceptions. Pre-requisites for the job: narcisism, sociopathy and idiocy.

Are we still talking about Intel, or...?

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The funny thing is that there are executives who know what they're doing, but they may be outvoted by people who failed upward due to connections or a "good background" (ivy league, internship, etc.).

I always thought "what does a brand name education prove?" This isn't the 1800s. Community college now is almost as good as Harvard was in the 1800s. Back then, just being able to read meant that you were educated.

Also, what does an internship prove? You know how to carry 8 coffees at once? You can wear a cheap suit? No, it's all cover for connections. If businesses wanted the best people (say the top 10%) you could literally just set up a table outside a subway station and interview random commuters, getting probably 10 good prospects in a day.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ivy League, internships etc. prove exactly what you are critizising. They prove to have the connections. They prove to be part of the in-group. They prove that you will defend your class interests against the lower classes. And if you are one of the very few people who achieve upwards class mobility, they prove that you will be betraying them.

This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.

I understand your point, but neo-marxist perspectives like this fundamentally misunderstand what companies care about (for obvious reasons). No company cares about "class power" or "privilege" because shareholders only care about their own money.

Their "class" is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Their “class” is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.

Firing the nepo babys remains consistent with being the owning class. And they put the nepo babies so they dont have to put rising middle and lower class people there.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's not. Investors literally only care about money.

Rich people don't have "class consciousness" because they all want to be better and richer than other rich people. That's what "keeping up with the Joneses" (or Kardashians) is. You don't want the Joneses to improve, because that hurts you.

It's a zero-sum game at the top. If your neighbor buys a Mercedes, you need to buy a Maserati. Like I said, neo-marxism fundamentally misunderstands rich people.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

I think you misunderstand rich people. Why do you think they make PACs? Why do you think they make Ivy Leagues and send their kids there? Why do you think they keep up all these illusions. Do you think they are too stupid to realize that you can get an equivalent education for a fraction of that money?

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 5 points 3 months ago

Rich people don't think these things consciously. The wealthy don't think, "How can I best ensure the worker class remains oppressed?" They simply act selfishly, and their actions together with the actions of other selfish people lead naturally to oppression.

Until they get wealthy enough to buy politicians, at which point it does consciously become "How can I best ensure the worker class remains oppressed?"