Talk:Intel/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Intel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Acquisition of Chips and Technologies

External links modified

Add Intel Shooting Star Technology

External links modified

OE Source

External links modified

2018 flaw

Hi Objective3000. I don't think removing that content was the best way to go about it. Just because it happened recently doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM is a problem. In fact, the statement from Intel substantiated the information and confirmed the existence of the exploit. " "Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors' processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits." (ABC News). Financial Review also wrote that Intel confirmed the reports.

I think the best plan of action would be to re-add the content with Intel's statements. We can also change "the last decade" to 1995 per ABC News. The Financial Review article also contains more details to make it less speculative. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact it's even bigger than the initial news articles made it out to be. Turns out it was discovered last year at Google, the CEO knew of the exploit when $24 million worth of stock was sold, and share prices for Intel and AMD have sunk and risen, respectively. The exploits have been nickanmed Meltdown and Spectre (2nd source), so we've now got a good title for a section. Since the removal of the content, Spectre (security vulnerability) and Meltdown (security vulnerability) have been created. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should be now added back. But, the initial reporting was almost definitely incorrect and there are still contradictions. The current claim is that it is not an Intel-only problem but that other manufacturers are involved. Also, that the 30% performance hit is probably nonsense. Yes, it was discovered last year. But, the Intel CEO stock was a planned, automatic sale initiated prior to discovery. Reporting has been very sloppy and the picture very different. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added it back and updated it accordingly. I left out lots of speculation (like the stock stuff, though I think it could be important in the future). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The 30% reduction from the Register is outlandish and should be removed. This would only occur in a specific test scenario that would never exist in a real application. O3000 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not just The Register that announced this. I've modified it to demonstrate this, as well as saying that it's workload-dependent. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I read The Register. But, I would never cite it. The 30% number is an estimate of a theoretical max if you wrote code to specifically exercise code to fix the problem that has yet to be developed. It's a very scary number with no relation to reality. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's important to include the 30% given that so many articles included it, many of which do no directly cite The Register. With this said, there have been other professionals and researchers that have agreed it's exaggerated, so I've added some more info. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This is why we have WP:RECENTISM. The actual numbers will be reported once fixes have been distributed. O3000 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of recentism, but it's the only well-sourced number we've got. We can amend and update it once more official numbers are released. And anyway, the article basically shrugs the 30% claim off immediately afterwards anyway. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But is it well-sourced? Aren't all the sources referring to the same source? And this is an extreme statement. It suggests that 90% of servers and PCs will slow by 30%. That would have massive worldwide impact and severely damage Intel and other major companies, possibly crippling e-commerce. It is irresponsible for us to repeat this wild guess. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made one final change that included Intel's response. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. It should be noted that the article says "up to 30%", meaning there's a high chance a system isn't inhibited by 30%. Here's a Forbes article. The section should also mention the impact this'll have on big organisations which is written about here. Amazon, for instance, has apparently already protected itself. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not a Forbe's article. It's a post to a Forbe's blog and not RS. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That's entirely my bad; shouldn't be searching for sources at 1am. Anyway, I'm happy with the way the section has progressed. Have a great 2018! Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Realy Forbe's bad. They make their blogs look like articles. WaPo does the same. Sources for tech are a problem. Financial mags get involved as the tech market is so large. But, their reporting is often lacking. The Register tends to be overdramatic and Ars Technica tends to have heavy biases. Anandtech is more reliable, but their coverage not as wide. Those are just my opinions. O3000 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why delete the New York Times summary of the security flaw?

Is the NY Times not a reliable source?

Why delete this content from 2018 security flaws:

 According to a New York Times report, "There is no easy fix for Spectre ... as for Meltdown, the software patch needed to fix the issue could slow down computers by as much as 30 percent".https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/computer-flaws.html

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m curious why you are adding this to two Intel articles and not the AMD and ARM articles as it affects them also. Intel has already announced that they have fixed the problems and is rolling out software updates. The largest users affected by these problems are Google and Amazon, and they have both reported little performance impact. This is the reason WP has a guideline on WP:RECENTISM. Let us avoid the moment-to-moment changes that bounce the financial markets around. (As an aside, Intel is up today and AMD diving.) In any case, the article you are citing is already out of date. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Other editors added the info about the flaw to this article. I have seen no evidence of Intel stating that it had a solution. This article is minutes old: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/5/16853732/intel-meltdown-spectre-cpu-vulnerability-class-action-suits Peter K Burian (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Here is the Intel comment to the media. I just found this: Intel said Wednesday that performance degradation after security updates for Meltdown "should not be significant" for the average user. But on a call with investors, the company admitted a decrease in performance of up to 30 percent was possible after fixes under some "synthetic workloads." Peter K Burian (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Synthetic workloads do not affect actual users. O3000 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

AMD? If I add anything to that article, I would add this:

AMD is big winner from chip flaw fiasco as more than $11 billion in Intel stock value is wiped out .. Investors are piling into AMD shares and selling Intel stock after major chip security vulnerabilities were revealed earlier this week, and it totally makes sense.

Only Spectre is an issue with AMD: One of the two vulnerabilities, called Meltdown, affects Intel processors. The other, named Spectre, could affect chips from Intel, AMD and Arm.

(btw, both of my PC's use Intel processors and I have no beef with the company or its products.)

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 and Peter K Burian I agree with your point about WP:RECENTISM, but what do "financial markets" have to do with editing?Dbsseven (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My point is that financial markets tend toward knee-jerk reactions and accompanying volatility. An encyclopedia should be more stable and dispassionate. CNBC reports every bit of everything as soon as they hear it as that’s what their listeners want. OTOH, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000, okay I understand your point a bit better. How about using a {{current}} tag to make this issue clear? However, I believe this is far better discussed in detail on the security vulnerability articles rather than the manufacturer's (as I mention below). Dbsseven (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a {{current}} tag. It was removed as they're are only a few editors. If editing starts up again, probably should restore it. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe an in-depth discussion of these issues belongs on the manufacturer's articles, but rather should be on the Spectre (security vulnerability) and Meltdown (security vulnerability) articles. Then background discussion (as appropriate, with links) should be included on related pages, such as here and the product pages. Otherwise the same content will end up repeated over numerous manufacturer and product pages.Dbsseven (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. BTW, here is an in-depth discussion. Although, even it is a bit out of date. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The current content in the Wikipedia article is hardly an "in-depth discussion" about the flaw. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That may be a fair criticism Peter K Burian, but is really something that should be discussed there. This article is about a 50 year old company that has made 1000s of products. In depth discussion of any particular topic should be discussed on a page specific to that content.Dbsseven (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again, fully-cited content that I added was deleted. The current content of this article looks like a whitewash to me. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This content that I had added indicates Intel's view. It was deleted on the basis that it was quoting financial analysts.

  A CNBC report indicated that Intel's estimate as to performance degradation after the solution for Meltdown "should not be significant" for the average user but later agreed that a decrease in performance of up to 30 percent was possible after fixes under some "synthetic workloads."https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/amd-is-big-winner-from-chip-flaw-fiasco.html

Call me paranoid, but I continue to feel that this is all a whitewash of Intel. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 and Peter K Burian. What about citing the phoronix articles? A reputable source and not nearly so excitable as CNBC. However this should be mentioned briefly, to highlight consequences of the issue/fix. In-depth discussion should be on the vulnerability specific article, IMO.Dbsseven (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Afraid I’m not familiar with Phoronix. Nothing about them at WP:RSN. I wouldn’t expect any performance impact on gaming, which makes extremely heavy CPU and GPU use. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Phoronix. They benchmark hardware in a linux environment. Very relevant to the cloud/industry. And gaming is a specific workload, very different than databases, file systems, etc seen impacted in benchmarks.Dbsseven (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter K Burian, your text looks like a bit more like a hit-piece to me. Let me explain what is meant by synthetic workload. I don’t know how the software fixes work. A possible method would require additional overhead during context switching (switching between kernel and user spaces). To measure the absolute max impact, a synthetic workload would be constructed that constantly switches contexts without actually performing any real work. This would provide a worst case scenario. But, the scenario is ridiculous. No actual workload would do this. The 30% number that you keep adding has been contradicted by IDC, Google, and Amazon. IDC has been a highly respected tech source for decades. Google and Amazon run massive cloud facilities – which are most affected by Spectre as they run under hypervisors. They are not seeing anything like 30%. This is a scare number that originated from an unknown source to draw headlines. We’re better than that. Please gain consensus for such changes. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, quote a source other than CNBC but provide the true version of Intel's view on the effect the fix will have. You're right; I am not a tecchie on computer processing. (However, I was a technical writer for photography magazines for over 20 years so I do understand concepts.) And I do feel that anything that seems to make Intel look bad is deleted. Not modified with a better source, but deleted. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 and Peter K Burian good points. However, other sources show ~20% performance reductions in some benchmarks (and ~0% in others). These are tests based on specific (but not contrived) workloads. So 30% may be the absolute greatest impact, ~20% the greatest impact in a possible real-world workload, and 0% a best-case workload. Giving some numerical measure of the consequences may be fair. (As the 0% is already described in the current text.) Is there a cite for the 30% number other than CNBC? Dbsseven (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Another version of Intel's actual view on the issue: During the call, Intel acknowledged that it has seen no degradation in some applications and up to 30% degradation in some applications. Intel did not want to get into details on the impact on desktop or laptop PC users and server or cloud users but there is abundant information in the public domain that indicates that the server and cloud applications are likely the most impacted. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting: Intel’s nightmare continues as lawsuits loom over Meltdown and Spectre bugs http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-nightmare-continues-as-lawsuits-loom-over-meltdown-and-spectre-bugs ...

  Intel has been busy firefighting this PR nightmare all week, and it seems the company will need plenty more extinguishers on hand in the near future. Meantime, other chip makers will likely be keeping as low a profile as possible.

   Also, the revelation that Intel’s chief executive Brian Krzanich allegedly sold off the majority of his shares in the company later on last year – after Intel was supposedly informed about the security flaws back in June – has added another pinch of spice to this whole affair (as if it wasn’t heated enough).

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also interesting: Intel Security Risk Is Much Worse Than Management Commentary Indicates Intel's security concern-related commentary is not credible in our opinion. The Company may face a massive recall. Intel faces much worse competitive landscape and its future products will likely be delayed. Intel is now a conviction short in our opinion. ... With a whole host of product, process, and security-related problems, the time has now come for investors to sell Intel short. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: I believe you have a valid point about including consequences of the bug. Please see my comment my comment here. Can we please discuss it here? (Adding more quotes from more sources is making it difficult for me to follow the discussion.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone tell the markets. Intel is up 1.34% and AMD down 2.5% today. SeekingAlpha is a crowd-sourced site and not RS for anything. Be very careful about any suggestion that Krzanich has committed a crime. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that SeekingAlpha is not a quality source. I still assert that phoronix is a good source. (It's already cited in the current text, and I have seen it cited on a number of technical articles which I read and edit). What about modifying the text to: "Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance, though database and compile benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%" Dbsseven (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We don’t know Intel’s fix. But, if they have already rolled out a fix, then it would not require compiler fixes as they don’t supply much in the way of compilers. I think Phoronix was assuming you would need to make compiler fixes to alter out of order execution, which could be costly. I suggest we only use actual reported experience after fixes have been applied. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: This is benchmarking the linux fix for these issues. Phoronix is applying the updated linux kernel, not assuming anything, and reporting the consequences of a standard suite of benchmarks. (Though minorly to correct you, Intel does famously produce it's own compiler.) There are already a mention of general impact with the MSFT comment about Azure performance. Dbsseven (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La

Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988

  Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1

Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter K Burian I believe you meant this in the discussion below. Dbsseven (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss Security Flaw section

Yes, @Dbsseven I have added many comments from various reliable sources in the previous topic and that can become confusing.

My primary points, all covered with quotes and citations in the previous Talk item. This WP article is about a corporation so the financial impact on the company, and its competitors, is relevant.

1. Intel's actual view on the effect the fix will have needs to be included. Use a source other than CNBC; https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

2. We should also consider including this info: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich sold about half his stock months after he learned about critical flaws in billions of his company's microchips. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html (Also at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-ceo-sold-millions-in-stock-after-company-was-informed-of-vulnerability-before-disclosure-2018-01-03

The company has known about the security flaw for months, according to the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 Intel Wrestled With Chip Flaws for Months

3. A class action suit vs. Intel has been started. http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-nightmare-continues-as-lawsuits-loom-over-meltdown-and-spectre-bugs

4. The Public Relations issue: WSJ is behnd a paywall but their article includes this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 3 hours ago - The disclosure of security flaws in computer chips dealt Intel what seemed like a sudden crisis, but behind the scenes it and other tech companies and experts have ... “I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU's, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that ...

Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This entire event is being way overblown. I understand that the tech blogs and financial sources are making such a huge deal. That’s what they do. But, the tech field is simply handling it the way they handle vast numbers of problems. The simple facts are:

Despite the fact that the problem, has existed for 15-20 years, not a single incident of hacking via these vulnerabilities has been reported.
Fixes have been developed and are being rolled out.
Major users have reported minimal impact on performance.

These wild speculations that the Intel CEO has committed a crime, that Intel, AMD, and ARM will have to recall a billion chips, that Intel is seriously damaged; are irresponsible. If something actually happens, we will report it when it happens. Let the blogs bark all they want. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and CNN do not publish wild speculation. And nobody is suggesting a crime.

Criticism of the company's handling of the issue is certainly valid in an article about a corporation.

Intel's stated view as to the slowdown produced by the fix is not speculation.

The class action suit is a fact. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peter K Burian I agree that the financial impact is relevant. However right now it is largely unknown. Please keep in mind WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, not all details have been published yet and the consequences are not entirely known. For example it is fair to mention that this has lead to lawsuits, but it might not be reasonable to discuss the consequences of those lawsuits. Also we need to be clear about what in those sources is speculation and what is fact. (Your example in point #4 explicitly begins with "I think". And source #1 is explicitly criticizing Intel's response.).

I propose the following to keep it simple. In addition it discussing performance consequences (as suggested above), what about: "These security flaws have lead to a class-action lawsuit and criticism of Intel's response." Dbsseven (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shareholder lawsuits are very common, and these will likely disappear as the stock is recovering and actually is close to its 52-week high. (How can you file a stockholder suit when you are near a high?:)) I really haven’t seen any serious criticism of Intel’s response by its customers. I think we are trying to move too quickly. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 you many be right, but to exclude it based on the idea it will go away is WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL also. To state it briefly and edit when new things happen is okay. But it is fair not to over-weight it also.Dbsseven (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying omit it because of that. Do we have any reason to believe these lawsuits are unusual? Major companies are always being sued. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That a major company is being sued is not unusual, I agree. But specific suits on topic may warrant mention (as examples: 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls and Firestone and Ford tire controversy). Dbsseven (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Those were successful suits (few are) involving deaths. Shareholder lawsuits are rarely news unless they involve massive losses (CitiGroup, Enron, BoA). O3000 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A more topical example Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#False_advertising_lawsuit. To be clear, this may be worth mentioning only in passing. Dbsseven (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think that lawsuit should be mentioned either. The AMD article doesn’t mention a lawsuit they actually lost . I don’t think that deserves mention either. Just another day in a large corp. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La Peter K Burian (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So if he's indicted, we'll include it. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La

Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988

  Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1

Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

*Proposal: I do not agree with all of the comments by Dbsseven in the various Talk items, but in general, this editor seems to have the most practical view of the content this article should include at this time. IMHO. (Some of the issues are still developing and not ready to be covered yet.) I hope you will do an edit Dbsseven.

Another concept would be a new section about the criticism in the major news media of the company's handling of the flaw, and of the CEOs massive sale of stock after the flaw was well known at Intel, and the Public Relations approach, etc. With a mention of the class action suits. In an article about a corporation, that might make more sense then detailed coverage of the security flaw. (I could write that but several Users are set to UNDO anything that I add.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You are close to a WP:BLP violation. If there was no connection between the stock sale and the problem, it is not interesting. If there was and it's proved, he would go to prison and be banned from running a stock held company. This is a serious crime. O3000 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I be close to a WP:BLP violation for quoting CNN, Bloomberg News, Gizmodo, Business Insider, Wall Street Journal and MSN?

The MSN comment is what the article should include, in my view: But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La

i.e. There is no crime but this is one of the issues for which Intel has been under criticism by the news media.

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the WP:BLP violation would be if the edits were put in place, rather than discussed. However, while I have not read every cite, the articles I have read say things like "could/might". None are explicitly accusatory. Therefore, something like "Brian Krzanich sold... leading journalists to questions about the timing of the sale" would be okay (IMO), while stating securities laws were broken would not.Dbsseven (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles do say he sold the stock and that the flaw had been known for months before that. But also that the sale was one that was scheduled long ago, per Intel. Nonetheless, it did attract criticism in the news media. Often, it's not what a company does, but how it's viewed after the fact. The perception. And it has not been positively viewed.

"Brian Krzanich sold... leading journalists to questions about the timing of the sale" Sure, that would work, although I doubt that many other Users will agree. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Clean slate consensus

hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000. This conversation seems to be going all over the place and difficult. I would like to find some common language WP:CONSENSUS that is everyone can live with. I would like to propose specific language and then we can discuss the language here. (cites to be added once language is agreed)

The current version (minus refs):

The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws.

I propose (changes in bold):

The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.

Dbsseven (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Dbsseven. I would prefer a new section about the criticism in the media that Intel has received, as per my previous note (second Proposal). That would include the security flaw.

But failing that, OK per your suggestion, but how about this for the last sentence: These security flaws led to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions in the news media about Intel's handling of the situation. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort. Phoronix may be a reliable blog. But, their test was made without the Intel fix and sounds like it was based on assumptions about what Intel could do. One man making assumptions about the capability of a company that invests over $10 billion a year in R&D. I think it’s more important to look at Amazon and Microsoft which have in place fixes currently supporting a vast number of cloud-server sites and have made statements about performance results. I am opposed to any mention of share-holder lawsuits. They are common. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I believe you mis-understand Phoronix, it is not a blog. There is no reported explicit "Intel fix". Further, this is the linux fix. To limit edits based on an expected Intel solution violates WP:CRYSTAL. If Intel does produce a better fix, then the text can be updated. (This is common on other technology articles.) And common-ness is not a basis for exclusion if it is relevant to this topic. (I am not proposing listing all Intel lawsuits, only the one in response to the issue here.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it’s a website supported by blog software. Intel’s statement: Intel has developed and is rapidly issuing updates for all types of Intel-based computer systems — including personal computers and servers — that render those systems immune from both exploits (referred to as “Spectre” and “Meltdown”) reported by Google Project Zero. Intel and its partners have made significant progress in deploying updates as both software patches and firmware updates. I am not crystal balling. I’m looking at what is actually happening – not at tech and financial blogs. Here we run into WP:RECENTISM again. We need to report actual results, not speculation. (BTW, no need to ping me.) O3000 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 There appears to be a need for consensus on WP:RECENTISM and what is/isn't too new. The current version of this article cites Phoronix stating "little impact" in gaming benchmarks. However the same source on the same date states there are differences in database benchmarks. What is the basis of inclusion/exclusion to be then? Perhaps it is better to state "initial mitigations..." And it is worth pointing out Intel is the largest contributor to linux, their statement does not preclude this being part of their solution/updates Dbsseven (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m not understanding a need to mention Phoronix. We can quote Microsoft Azure, with $15 billion in datacenters available in 140 countries. Or Amazon AWS global datacenters. They have applied fixes – and yet we aren’t hearing any complaints from their massive number of users. Security patches are incredibly common. Microsoft issues them on Tuesdays. This one sounds bigger. But, much of the scare stories in the press have been outlandish. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Company revenue or location are not standards for reputable sources. In fact, secondary sources are encouraged. WP:PSTS And from those Primary sources: Amazon and Google have explicitly stated they have update their linux kernel in response to this issue. And they do not say "all" customers are unaffected but "majority". Google explicitly states "Performance can vary, as the impact of the KPTI mitigations depends on the rate of system calls made by an application". Intel also states "performance impact of these updates is highly workload-dependent" I am trying to find consensus language to match and clarify this varied performance response with the fix. Dbsseven (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I am using Phoronix to explicitly cite how most use-cases are not affected, but some are. This is in agreement with what Google/Amazon/Intel have stated. The statement "much of the scare stories in the press have been outlandish" is not in agreement with Intel, which lists these as "important" vulnerabilities Dbsseven (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Phoronix is no less a primary source than Amazon and Microsoft. I think Amazon and Microsoft gave out more info on performance than that. They would also be the first to join a legitimate lawsuit. Their experiences in performance hits are based on actual production workloads. There exist serious problems with benchmarking synthetic workloads. The results can be very meaningful for those knowing the exact construction and completely understanding the limitations of the results. As I understand it, the worst case scenarios involved heavy SQL calls, probably remote calls. That’s not something most of the billion chips affected deal with. Throwing around numbers like 30% and raw benchmarks along with scary headlines originating with The Register has caused great volatility in the markets that is now starting to correct as cooler heads prevail. We should not use raw benchmark numbers here understood by fewer than 0.001% of readers. Maybe with great care in the main articles on Spectre and Meltdown. And, of course these are important vulnerabilities. But, Intel/AMD/ARM will not be recalling a billion chips and people will (unfortunately) still be Tweeting tomorrow. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with the markets. That is irrelevant here. WP:NOT Dbsseven (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know we have nothing to do with the markets; So, let’s not use seekingalpha and CNBC as a template. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, glad we agree. Those are not good sources and I do not suggest using them. As this is a technical issue I am suggesting we cite reputable on-topic sources. Phoronix is such a source, and PC World is a secondary source supporting the quality of Phoronix and their results.Dbsseven (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can find more information that Amazon/MSFT, please cite it WP:PROVEIT. These are the cites in-hand. As for being rare: the acknowledged rare Pentium FDIV bug a similar note on this article, as well as an independent article in detail. And databases are very relevant (see the business of Oracle Corporation as one example.)

Benchmarks are used to "assess the relative performance of an object, normally by running a number of standard tests and trials against it" (per Benchmark (computing)). If you concern is tone then please let us discuss the language of how to include these results. Perhaps with prose without percentages given. Dbsseven (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(I also strongly disagree with "not something most of the billion chips affected", "fewer than 0.001% of readers", "Intel/AMD/ARM will not be recalling". These are WP:OR and not grounds for editorial decisions.) Dbsseven (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds like OR. I may have a little difficulty separating myself from the fact I’ve been in the tech field for over a half-century with expertise in benchmarking. That makes me not one wit more qualified than anyone else to edit this article, and I rarely edit tech articles. But, it’s what is behind my belief that such numbers are so misunderstood. As for suggested text, it’s already in the article. I’m not saying it will pass WP:10YT. But, it was written in an attempt to withstand the changing story as long as possible. More detailed, more timely, material belongs in the main articles. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand your perspective a bit better re WP:10YT. However, my concern is that as written current this article gives little credence to an impact of the bug (saying only "ballpark", and that's weasly to me), when there are good sources with explicit results of impacts ranging from none to significant. I would suggest "...using the initial Linux Kernel page-table isolation mititgation showed little impact in some benchmarks, but slowing in particular use-cases." This is immediately followed by the notes about real world impact and planned future mitigation. Sound better Objective3000? Dbsseven (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Seems a bit odd to focus on video game benchmarks. But, gamers are more concerned with performance (even obsessed) than most. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure doing business with you. BTW, the Pentium divide issue was a far bigger deal. It could not be solved by OS patches. Every compiler had to be modified to check for the condition and every program using floating point had to be recompiled, impossible in many cases. Actual results could be affected if the application did not recompile or the user did not update, and performance was impacted if they did. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good finding consensus with you as well. Thanks for the Pentium background. We will see what ends up happening with this. (It doesn't really add anything to the prose, so not worth adding another cite, but RedHad has also confirmed on the varied performance impacts of the bug-fix. )Dbsseven (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Phoronix seems solid to me. Phoronix benchmarks have been cited by a number of other technical publications such as CNET News[9][10] and Slashdot.[11] It's certainly not a blog. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal (italics of uncertain content):

The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Benchmarks by Phoronix using the Linux Kernel page-table isolation mititgation demonstrated little impact on gaming frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.

Dbsseven (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 bug performance hit

Intel Corporation seeking to update sections in the Intel Wiki Page

"Intelligent Technology and Electronics" listed at Redirects for discussion

Pentium

Importance of missing out on Apple mobile chips

Proposed merge of Intel Ignite into Intel

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Intel acquired Cosmonio September 2020

Intel acquisitions since 2009
Number	Acquisition announcement date	Company	Business	Country	Price	Used as or integrated with	Ref(s).
1	June 4, 2009	Wind River Systems	Embedded Systems	US	$884M	Software	^[1]
2	August 19, 2010	McAfee	Security	US	$7.6B	Software	^[2]
3	August 30, 2010	Infineon (partial)	Wireless	Germany	$1.4B	Mobile CPUs	^[3]
4	March 17, 2011	Silicon Hive	DSP	Netherlands	N/A	Mobile CPUs	^[4]
5	September 29, 2011	Telmap	Software	Israel	$300–350M	Location Services	^[5]
6	October 30, 2011	Invision	Software	Israel	$50–60M	Software	^[6]
7	April 13, 2013	Mashery	API Management	US	$180M	Software	^[7]
8	May 6, 2013	Stonesoft Corporation	Security	Finland	$389M	Software	^[8]
9	July 16, 2013	Omek Interactive	Gesture	Israel	N/A	Software	^[9]
10	September 13, 2013	Indisys	Natural language processing	Spain	N/A	Software	^[10]
11	March 25, 2014	BASIS	Wearable	US	N/A	New Devices	^[11]
12	August 13, 2014	Avago Technologies (partial)	Semiconductor	US	$650M	Communications Processors	^[12]
13	December 1, 2014	PasswordBox	Security	Canada	N/A	Software	^[13]
14	January 5, 2015	Vuzix	Wearable	US	$24.8M	New Devices	^[14]
15	February 2, 2015	Lantiq	Telecom	Germany	$345M	Gateways	^[15]
16	June 1, 2015	Altera	Semiconductor	US	$16.7B	Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) - e.g. FPGAs	^[16]
17	June 18, 2015	Recon	Wearable	US	$175M	New Devices	^[17]
18	October 26, 2015	Saffron Technology	Cognitive computing	US	undisclosed	Software	^[18]
19	January 4, 2016	Ascending Technologies	UAVs	Germany	undisclosed	New Technology	^[19]
20	March 9, 2016	Replay Technologies	Video technology	Israel	undisclosed	3D video technology	^[20]
21	April 5, 2016	Yogitech	IoT security and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.	Italy	undisclosed	Software	^[21]
22	August 9, 2016	Nervana Systems	Machine learning technology	US	$350M	New Technology	^[22]
23	September 6, 2016	Movidius	Computer vision	Ireland	undisclosed	New Technology	^[23]
24	March 16, 2017	Mobileye	Autonomous vehicle technology	Israel	$15B	Self driving technology	^[24]^[25]
25	July 12, 2018	eASIC	Semiconductor	US	undisclosed	Programmable Solutions Group	^[26]
26	April 16, 2019	Omnitek	FPGA Video Acceleration	UK	undisclosed	Video acceleration	^[27]^[28]
27	December 16, 2019	Habana Labs	Machine learning technology	Israel	$2B	New Technology	^[29]
28	May 4, 2020	Moovit	Transit data	Israel	$900M	Transit data	^[30]
29	May 20, 2020	Rivet Networks	Networking	US	undisclosed		^[31]
30	September 24, 2020	Cosmonio	Computer vision	Netherlands	undisclosed	Software	^[32]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Restructure this page and Improve Quality

proposed section on neuromorphic computng developments

Civic education

Arthur Rock a founder

The Origins section lists Arthur Rock as a founder based upon two sources, one of which is a primary source, i.e., apparently a draft or copy of part a pre-IPO Convertible Debenture offering. IMO this is sufficient for inclusion but than eliminating we should at least talk about it. FWIW it seems relatively simple, if not easy, to verify by finding either the offering or the IPO at which point we can correct the article, if necessary. If @Coolcaesar: wants to tag the section as disputed that's fine but eliminating the material seems inappropriate. Tom94022 (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No original research, specifically the part about "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Most debt and securities instruments are primary sources but are filed, not "published." Only annual and quarterly reports are often circulated broadly to libraries and can be said to be "published." Also, what we have is a bare link to a PDF with no information on the provenance of that document. If it turns out that debenture was sitting in a drawer in someone's private file cabinet for decades, then it hasn't been "published." The point of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia cannot be a first publisher.

Under WP:V, the burden is on the editor (in this case, an anon IP) inserting information to provide sufficient citations to reliable sources (including sufficient foundation to show that a source is reliable). Speculation that one could find the IPO documentation later is a proof surrogate, an rhetorical tactic that is no substitute for citations to reliable sources. IPO documentation is notoriously hard to find before 1996 (before use of EDGAR became commonplace).

If you look carefully at Intel's official timeline, it's clear that Intel acknowledges Arthur Rock's role as a founding investor and its first chairman, but not necessarily a founder in the sense that word is normally used.

I just came across a reliable source on Google Books that does argue Rock could be considered to be a "third co-founder," but since the company doesn't seem to regard him as a founder, I'm not going to bother to add a cite to that source. Then one would have to lay out the whole crazy debate over who are the founders of Intel and that's not an issue I care about enough to spend two hours researching it and typing it up. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a substantive distinction between "founder" and "founding investor" nor between "filling" and "publication". Since thanks to your research there is now an RS having Rock as a "third co-founder" and one as a "founding investor (added to article) it seems to me that the article doesn't violate either NOR. I agree that finding pre-Edgar documents is difficult but it is not impossible, but that reference is now one of four sources that exist so I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Tom94022 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: see READ THE INTEL CONVERTIBLE NOTE BY ARTHUR ROCK for context. Tom94022 (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That SLS Web page speaks to the context in which that note was created, but not its provenance (where it's been all these years).

Please review WP:V and WP:RS. There is a fundamental difference between filing and publication.

Anyone can "file" a document with a court or a government agency. That's why courts of law declare people to be vexatious litigants to put an end to their nonsensical and frivolous filings. Also, documents that are filed sit in only one place forever. In the past 20 years, some databases have begun to collect and scan in filed documents to make them easier to search online (behind paywalls), but their collections are notorious for being piecemeal and incomplete.

The point of "publication" is that (1) the editor acts a filter and (2) published documents are distributed. For example, I can find old hard copy issues of U.S. News and World Report magazine in bound hardcover volumes in libraries all over the world. So if one person adds an assertion to a WP article supported by a citation to a U.S. News article from 1987, I can find the issue cited and then challenge the assertion as failing verification (because the article does not exist or does not actually say that). The point of WP:V and WP:RS is that by preferring secondary sources over primary sources, we increase the reliability of the encyclopedia because the majority of journalists, writers, and editors are ethical professionals who strive to maintain their credibility by publishing accurate work.

Also, that's incorrect to say that "thanks to your research there is now a RS having Rock as a 'third co-founder.'" No, there isn't. It's merely one argument put forward by an academic researcher (not a professor), which I believe is incorrect because it looks like she's confusing an investor with a founder. That's why I'm not going to add that source to the article.

There is a fundamental difference between an investor who merely brings money to the table, and a founder who has to formulate and pitch a business plan to investors (especially angel investors) and then actually execute by hiring and firing employees and managing them on a day-to-day basis in order to bring products and services to market and make a profit. Rock had more involvement than most investors because he was also the chairman of the board, but a board of directors only meets every few weeks or months. The founders of a company necessarily have to be on-site every day, especially in the first few months. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that an article published in the Stanford Lawyer by its editor Sharon Driscoll qualifies as a RS for publishing and authenticating the document. The original deletion was because the document needed "contextual information" which has been provided. That with the addition of Intel's description of Rock as a "founding-investor" should end this discussion. Most of the objections are personal opinions as to meaning of founder, meaning of publication, requirement for provenance" etc; please read "WP:NPOV" Tom94022 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You did not respond directly to nearly all the facts I raised above. They're not opinions, they're facts. You have not established consensus on this issue. You really need to read up on what is a founder of a company and what it means to publish a document.

The mere fact that Stanford scanned in the debenture and linked to it in their article says nothing about where it came from or whether it was ever published. For all we know, it could have been sitting in a drawer at Stanford Libraries Special Collections in a warehouse in Newark or Livermore all these years, or it could have been in Intel's corporate archives in Santa Clara. I have accessed archival documents at Stanford (Douglas Engelbart's papers). Archival documents are not normally "published". That's why the APA has issued special guidelines on how to cite archival documents. Archival documents are "published" only for the most important celebrities in history. For example, the Einstein Papers Project publishes Albert Einstein's personal papers.

People in Silicon Valley and the tech industry in general draw a sharp distinction between founders and investors. Sometimes a founder will invest in their own company, but the two categories are not the same thing. The published literature is quite clear on this. The founder of PeoplePath wrote an entire book about founder turnover in which he defines a founder as both a shareholder and an executive of the company. And this book on startup boards by three seasoned venture capitalists is clearly treating the founder and VC investors as distinct categories in its discussion of who gets to chair the board. As does this book in discussing the power of VC to overcome capital bottlenecks.

For example, Mike Markkula is not normally considered to be a co-founder of Apple, even though he was the company's original angel investor, first chairman, and second CEO, and he also wrote its first business plan and engineered the incorporation of the company. The majority of published sources treat the two Steves and Ronald Wayne as Apple's co-founders, because they signed Apple's original partnership agreement in 1976. Only a minority of sources call Markkula an Apple co-founder.

One more thing. I was just at the picnic, as I have been most years. What am I referring to? --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as consensus goes no one has joined this discussion so I suggest you need more justification to remove the long-standing statement about Rock which may go back to at least 2011, particularly given that your original reason for removal, now overcome, was the lack of context.
As far as provenance goes, that seems to be an irrelevant strawman argument, since the document has now been published by Stanford and authenticated by Rock.
As for founder, there are many definitions including one who gets founder's stock. Intel confirms Rock as a "founding investor" and other sources confirm he received founder's stock. AFAICT, only Jobs, Wozniak and Rock received founder's stock. Your Markkula example confirms his distinction from Rock - there is no evidence that he received founder's stock so by any measure he was not a founder of Apple. BTW, "angel investors" usually purchase debentures convertible to common stock.

Tom94022 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I reread the Stanford Lawyer article again with fresh eyes and I'll concede the point on provenance. Rock does expressly state that he wrote it, although "it" is not very clear at first. One has to read the whole article carefully to be clear on what document he is talking about.

In the debenture itself, Rock never states he is a founder. He merely states that Intel was "incorporated" by himself and the two others, and that he has been associated with the "formation" of several other companies. But anyone who works on the incorporation of a company or co-signed its incorporation papers can say with a straight face that they "incorporated" or "formed" the company. That doesn't necessarily mean they "founded" the company.

Again, Intel is careful to not call Rock a founder. For example, he's not even mentioned in this company article on Intel's founders. He's only a founding investor. So the best way to resolve this is to expressly note in the body of the article itself that Intel characterizes Rock as a "founding investor" but refers to Moore and Noyce as its two "founders," and then list only those two in the infobox.

The duration of the listing of Rock as a founder in this WP article is of no relevance. We have problems all the time with people inserting unsourced information into Wikipedia that isn't caught and reverted for many years.

Again, you're advancing an unusual definition of "founder" that most people don't use, including people in ZIP code 94022 in Silicon Valley. Anyone who lives or has lived there would know about the annual town picnic, which is what I was just referring to above. Anyone from 94022 would have shot back, "Yes, I was at the town picnic too," or, "I hope you had a good time, but I didn't make it to the town picnic this year."

As a lifelong reader of many English-language news sources including the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Mercury News, the SF Chronicle, etc., I have not encountered such an unusually broad interpretation of the term "founder." So it appears to be original research in violation of WP:NOR, plus it implicitly amounts to using Wikipedia for advocacy in violation of WP:NOT. I've already cited published, reliable sources for the commonly understood meaning of "founder" as someone who actually creates, starts, and manages a company on a day-to-day basis as an executive, versus a mere investor who puts up money but doesn't actually run the company. Do you have any sources supporting your position that "founder" can be used for someone who merely receives stock in connection with the formation of a company and serves on the board but does not act in an executive capacity? --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

See Definition of founders stock. The citing of ones understanding of a term based upon one's reading sounds like OR and I would note that I read most of the same journals, live in that ZIP code and do not reach the same conclusion as to "founders" meaning nor that particular June 3 picnic. The duration in the article is an indication of consensus, and so far no one has joined this talk so there certainly is no consensus for removal, if you want to invoke WP:DISPUTED or WP:DISPUTE please do so but given the lack of interest so far, Rock should remain as a founder in the article. Tom94022 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

First, the town picnic was on Sunday, June 4, 2023. They usually hold the picnic on Sundays.

Second, you are citing a definition of "founders' stock" as stock that is given to the founders of a company. Your application of that term to Rock doesn't make sense, unless you are inferring from that definition that because Rock received stock concurrently with the two co-founders of Intel, that logically makes him a founder too. Under that reading, anyone who receives shares as part of the incorporation of a company is therefore entitled to be called a founder. Is that a fair statement of how you're applying that definition?

Most people in Silicon Valley see it the other way around: an executive who actually conceives of, starts, operates, and builds a company is a founder, but a venture capital investor who injects cash in exchange for equity is not a founder. In other words, "founder" status is based on what one does to create a company, not what one receives from a company. This is consistent with the Merriam-Webster definition of "founder," which is one who "founds or establishes". Notice how the word "founder" is defined in terms of verbs normally used in the active voice, not the passive voice. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Intel/Archive 2

Acquisition of Chips and Technologies

External links modified

Add Intel Shooting Star Technology

External links modified

External links modified

OE Source

External links modified

External links modified

2018 flaw

Why delete the New York Times summary of the security flaw?

Let's discuss Security Flaw section

Clean slate consensus

2018 bug performance hit

Intel Corporation seeking to update sections in the Intel Wiki Page

"Intelligent Technology and Electronics" listed at Redirects for discussion

Pentium

Importance of missing out on Apple mobile chips

Proposed merge of Intel Ignite into Intel

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Intel acquired Cosmonio September 2020

Acquisition table (2009–present)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Restructure this page and Improve Quality

proposed section on neuromorphic computng developments

Civic education

Arthur Rock a founder

"1nt3l" listed at Redirects for discussion

"1ntel" listed at Redirects for discussion

Related Articles

Related Articles

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB870065801593554000

https://web.archive.org/web/20080201175017/http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/01/HNintelresponse_1.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/01/HNintelresponse_1.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20150611233644/http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/intel-dc-s3710-enterprise-ssd%2C2-915.html

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/intel-dc-s3710-enterprise-ssd%2C2-915.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n1964_v39/ai_13901771

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2109_v42/ai_18135525

https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/intel/#.WU6KtRiZNo4

https://web.archive.org/web/20081216121817/http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839

http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839

https://web.archive.org/web/20130116171317/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Intel-Smart-Response-Technology-Explained/1292/2

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Intel-Smart-Response-Technology-Explained/1292/2

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151

"Intel buys Israeli 3D video tech firm Replay Technologies"

"Intel buys Yogitech, aims to bolster IoT safety efforts"

READ THE INTEL CONVERTIBLE NOTE BY ARTHUR ROCK