Meta Is Preparing to Notify Employees of Large-Scale Layoffs This Week(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Meta Is Preparing to Notify Employees of Large-Scale Layoffs This Week
https://www.wsj.com/articles/meta-is-preparing-to-notify-employees-of-large-scale-layoffs-this-week-11667767794
411 comments
You are familiar with the phrase "Man's reach exceeds his grasp"? It is a lie. Man's grasp exceeds his nerve. The first time I tried to change the world, I was hailed as a visionary. The second time, I was asked politely to retire. Society only tolerates one change at a time. -Nikola Tesla (in "The Prestige")
Tesla, like Preston Tucker, was his own undoing. Tesla did not manage his business relationships well. He needed someone to help him with that, and didn’t have such a person.
I wouldn't know much about Politicians but I'm certainly curious about Einstein's inclusion in your examples. Just how do you think that the discoverer of Photoelectricity, Brownian Motion, Special & General Relativity, and one of the founding fathers of QM failed later in his life?
One can read about Einstein's search for a unified theory of physics (see, for example, https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200512/history.cfm).
"Failed" is a big word, which I do not like to use. I prefer to say that his gamble, which consumed the second part of his professional life, did not pay off.
And the way you describe Einstein's work is the same way someone might describe, in other contexts, the work of Zuck or Musk. How is it possible that Zuck "failed" with the metaverse (remains to be seen, of course, I don't have a crystal ball) after he founded Facebook and had the genius intuition to buy Whatsapp and Instagram?
"Failed" is a big word, which I do not like to use. I prefer to say that his gamble, which consumed the second part of his professional life, did not pay off.
And the way you describe Einstein's work is the same way someone might describe, in other contexts, the work of Zuck or Musk. How is it possible that Zuck "failed" with the metaverse (remains to be seen, of course, I don't have a crystal ball) after he founded Facebook and had the genius intuition to buy Whatsapp and Instagram?
I don’t know that I’d compare Mark of Elon’s successes to that of Einstein. Einstein’s contributions to this world tower above theirs.
I am comparing trajectories, not values, as the units of measure are different.
Typical "Hot Hand Fallacy" just because someone had success before, even if he had a lot of success in a row doesn't mean he will have it forever.
It is not a "Hot Hand" problem because the context changes. Hot Hand is when you face the same problem (shooting a 3 in basket), not when one has to choose what to bet on, since the variability of the conditions surrounding the bet are likely to make every bet a unique situation.
Like saying that Einstein delivering results that change a whole field of physics every 5 years is a "Hot Hand" problem, is surely misguided.
Like saying that Einstein delivering results that change a whole field of physics every 5 years is a "Hot Hand" problem, is surely misguided.
The search for a unified theory of physics was not unique to Einstein and thousands after him have continued to look for it still. The only "failures", so to speak, of his would arguably be the Cosmological Constant or his denial of the Quantum Mechanics. But, given how profoundly bizzarre these phenomena are, not even the greatest of Physicists can blame him for having doubts, much less you or I.
They were comparing later Einsten to young Einsten, not to the rest of us. Most of the discoveries you listed earlier came during the "miracle year" in his mid 20s. The remaining one (general relativity) came about ten years later, though it's the one that made him really famous. That's more than probably every other physicist so maybe it's unfair to keep ask what he did next. But it makes sense that lots of early success can lead someone to overreach and reduce their later accomplishments. Didn't Feynman say something like that regarding the negative effect of the Nobel prize on physicists.
[deleted]
The thing about Facebook is that it started from connecting people: friends, families, long lost co-worker, etc. Nowadays, there's so much outside content (some of is interesting sure) that it's a lot more like Reddit or Twitter.
And the Metaverse feels like more of a detour away from other people. I liked Facebook when I got to connect with a bunch of people I hadn't seen in year. I don't want it to be like Mike TV from Willy Wonka. I get plenty enough escapism from movies and shows.
And the Metaverse feels like more of a detour away from other people. I liked Facebook when I got to connect with a bunch of people I hadn't seen in year. I don't want it to be like Mike TV from Willy Wonka. I get plenty enough escapism from movies and shows.
It is true that it was started as a way to connect people, and I remember the excitement of finding out whether the old classmate got married, the colleague got fired, or the ex-boyfriend got uglier.
But it also got old pretty quickly, like lunches with ex-colleagues: the first one is interesting and lively, the second one is forced, and when they call us for the third one we say we're sorry, but we just ate a pangolin at the wet market.
To keep engagement high, other activities on Facebook were needed, so groups, news, marketplace, etc. A simplified view, sure, but novelty wears off, and that is especially true and noticeable for fast-growing platforms, sports, tourist spots that cause feverish excitement.
But it also got old pretty quickly, like lunches with ex-colleagues: the first one is interesting and lively, the second one is forced, and when they call us for the third one we say we're sorry, but we just ate a pangolin at the wet market.
To keep engagement high, other activities on Facebook were needed, so groups, news, marketplace, etc. A simplified view, sure, but novelty wears off, and that is especially true and noticeable for fast-growing platforms, sports, tourist spots that cause feverish excitement.
Tbh I am not that quickly to get bored (and neither are many many other people, not all humanity has OCD), and FB would still work very fine for me if it kept to its core mission (and maybe more stability since it was by far the worst working web app from all the big ones).
But social aspect went south as soon as it became big business, feed stopped being chronological, it kept (and still keeps to me) randomly refreshing and reshuffling and since beginning of covid it is full of ads and sponsored content that I couldn't care less about and annoys me to no end. When core sucks more and more no amount of glitter wrapping and psychology/addiciton-driven design makes it even as good as original.
And on meeting former colleagues, it simply boils down whether its a proper friendship or not. Clearly your description falls into "not" category.
But social aspect went south as soon as it became big business, feed stopped being chronological, it kept (and still keeps to me) randomly refreshing and reshuffling and since beginning of covid it is full of ads and sponsored content that I couldn't care less about and annoys me to no end. When core sucks more and more no amount of glitter wrapping and psychology/addiciton-driven design makes it even as good as original.
And on meeting former colleagues, it simply boils down whether its a proper friendship or not. Clearly your description falls into "not" category.
The park of Facebook that I was really in to was being able to store all the information about my social life. Tagging photos, making journal entries, checking in at locations, keeping track of birthdays and whatnot.
Before all the newsfeed stuff it was a pure reflection of who I was and who I surrounded myself with and it was glorious.
Before all the newsfeed stuff it was a pure reflection of who I was and who I surrounded myself with and it was glorious.
> we're sorry, but we just ate a pangolin at the wet market.
rofl.
I meet ex-colleagues for lunch every now and then. It ain't that bad... But I mean it depends. There's also a lot of ex-colleagues I never see again. Some are more like friends, some less.
rofl.
I meet ex-colleagues for lunch every now and then. It ain't that bad... But I mean it depends. There's also a lot of ex-colleagues I never see again. Some are more like friends, some less.
I don't agree with this assessment. Instagram today is rather close to the Facebook back in the day. It does not have groups, marketplace, news (unless you follow a news agency), etc. And it is very popular.
It is similar in terms of the user demographics to Facebook back in the day, but the revealed preferences of the users and way of using the social media are not similar at all.
"Musk looks like the disorganized mess he's making at Twitter, the kind of "visionary" we've all had to work with and who has sucked the will to live out of us: unreasonable expectations, constant changes of trajectory, the feeling that one well-spent night or one too many drinks for them would make our lives heaven or hell."
He has been in control for what, one week? I would examine your own political leanings and motivations for wanting this assertion to be true
He has been in control for what, one week? I would examine your own political leanings and motivations for wanting this assertion to be true
It is said that sometimes one can recognize the love of their life at first sight. I say that sometimes one can recognize a disorganized mess in five minutes. And that's what I see in Musk's (early) management of the company.
I have no political leanings, and I'm not particularly interested in the fate of Twitter.
I'm there, I find it instructive, I've learned quite a bit about my areas of interest by reading what other people write on Twitter. I used to tweet more, but I realized that to contribute meaningfully you have to have a position and personality traits that I don't possess.
I have no political leanings, and I'm not particularly interested in the fate of Twitter.
I'm there, I find it instructive, I've learned quite a bit about my areas of interest by reading what other people write on Twitter. I used to tweet more, but I realized that to contribute meaningfully you have to have a position and personality traits that I don't possess.
> I have no political leanings
I am rather incredulous at this statement but if you are being truthful, please help me arrive at this same locality. The closest I can manage is all of my political leanings are derivative of those who raised me. I wish I could be more neutral, objective from my own observation, existence.
I am rather incredulous at this statement but if you are being truthful, please help me arrive at this same locality. The closest I can manage is all of my political leanings are derivative of those who raised me. I wish I could be more neutral, objective from my own observation, existence.
If you really want to disconnect, stop voting.
Mathematically it (very likely) won't change anything, and you'll find over time that you're not as "team ball" invested in things (because at least the US political system is entirely a massive game theory simulation).
And then try as hard as you can to steelman the opposite position to one you hold (and that people actually hold the opposite of) - you don't have to agree with it but you should be able to identify the priors that cause disagreement, and not resort to "that side is evil/dumb/insane".
And after awhile you'll see lots of similarities and be able to identify them (when people are not arguing to search for truth or the best option, but are arguing for their side or to prove to their side that they are ON their side).
Mathematically it (very likely) won't change anything, and you'll find over time that you're not as "team ball" invested in things (because at least the US political system is entirely a massive game theory simulation).
And then try as hard as you can to steelman the opposite position to one you hold (and that people actually hold the opposite of) - you don't have to agree with it but you should be able to identify the priors that cause disagreement, and not resort to "that side is evil/dumb/insane".
And after awhile you'll see lots of similarities and be able to identify them (when people are not arguing to search for truth or the best option, but are arguing for their side or to prove to their side that they are ON their side).
Honestly this view over the long term leads to the worst outcome for everyone, especially when adopted my any number of people.
Possibly the best outcome is getting enough people that would elect politicians that would enact new voting systems like ranked choice and move away from a two party system that will eventually collapse this country in extremism. Just don't blindly and willingly accept that the two party system is the only choice. And do not let an objectively evil person win because you want to remain neutral, cause your neutrality is gone if they get elected.
Possibly the best outcome is getting enough people that would elect politicians that would enact new voting systems like ranked choice and move away from a two party system that will eventually collapse this country in extremism. Just don't blindly and willingly accept that the two party system is the only choice. And do not let an objectively evil person win because you want to remain neutral, cause your neutrality is gone if they get elected.
But this individual does not have control over any number of people, only their own vote. And the effect of a single vote is provably negligible in almost every election in history. So lecturing them about what a group can accomplish with cooperative action is pointless, and assigning "group blame" to them seems unethical to me. The tragedy of the commons for a large number of people often leaves us with no one to assign a significant amount of blame. This is just a sad fact.
>But this individual does not have control over any number of people,
What do you mean by control? I mean if you mean "They don't point a gun at people and tell them how to vote" then few people do (see Russia for an example of that). If instead you mean "They get on social media and tell people not to vote" then they have some control in the form of advertising. You have no idea what they are in charge of and any assignment of blame.
No snowflake blames itself for the avalanche
What do you mean by control? I mean if you mean "They don't point a gun at people and tell them how to vote" then few people do (see Russia for an example of that). If instead you mean "They get on social media and tell people not to vote" then they have some control in the form of advertising. You have no idea what they are in charge of and any assignment of blame.
No snowflake blames itself for the avalanche
Back in the day, when homosexuality was discussed in fora not frequented by distinguished intellectuals, one of the points presented by "traditionalists" against the social acceptance and spread of homosexuality was that if everyone were homosexual, the human species would come to an end. But we have seen that people continue to have heterogeneous sexual desires, and our science and technology have both advanced. It is very rare that there is a need, in the "discourse" or in the practice, for a "but what if everyone did this" gotcha.
I think the call to vote because otherwise this wins, that loses, is similar in spirit to the fallacious attempt to use some sort of big-society framework to "stop homosexuality."
I think the act of voting is one of the ways in which someone can contribute to society. Other ways are, for example, offering a smile, money or physical help, depending on the situation, to others in a time of need; it is perhaps contributing to the education of the disadvantaged; it is being a good citizen; and many other contributions are possible. It is not necessary to do everything all the time.
I think the call to vote because otherwise this wins, that loses, is similar in spirit to the fallacious attempt to use some sort of big-society framework to "stop homosexuality."
I think the act of voting is one of the ways in which someone can contribute to society. Other ways are, for example, offering a smile, money or physical help, depending on the situation, to others in a time of need; it is perhaps contributing to the education of the disadvantaged; it is being a good citizen; and many other contributions are possible. It is not necessary to do everything all the time.
If "everyone did what I did" is just another form of game theory, but then at least "lesser evil 2.0 - I'm slightly better than hitler" would win with 0.0001% of the vote or something.
I have policy leanings, but not political leanings.
I reside in the United States, but I was born and raised abroad and have not voted in political elections for more than 10 years. I really appreciate the opportunity to vote and I would never give up my right, but I can't bring myself to go to the polls and support, first and foremost, people I don't admire or don't feel represented by. Curiously, until my early 20s I was very passionate about politics, now I just observe.
> people I don't admire or don't feel represented by
I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest. The primary philosophy guiding me at this point is bias against incumbency, on the premise that including more citizens in the political process is worthwhile, like voting.
I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest. The primary philosophy guiding me at this point is bias against incumbency, on the premise that including more citizens in the political process is worthwhile, like voting.
"I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest."
In part, it's the nature of the job, one has to overpromise--since they are voted for something they will do, not something they did, although that may inform what they will do--and then, by definition, underdeliver. Which means first lying and then trying not to get caught, or using one of the varieties of the "things have changed" defense. Unsavory behaviors, no doubt about it.
I like to watch on YouTube some old political debates (60s, 70s, 80s) that used to take place in my country and one of the many things I noticed is that, yes, charisma and speed of thought were important, but there was substance behind the positions politicians took. My point is not an "oh, the old days" kind of observation; back then there were many terribly incompetent or outright rogue politicians, but the quality of the median politicians was considerably better.
In part, it's the nature of the job, one has to overpromise--since they are voted for something they will do, not something they did, although that may inform what they will do--and then, by definition, underdeliver. Which means first lying and then trying not to get caught, or using one of the varieties of the "things have changed" defense. Unsavory behaviors, no doubt about it.
I like to watch on YouTube some old political debates (60s, 70s, 80s) that used to take place in my country and one of the many things I noticed is that, yes, charisma and speed of thought were important, but there was substance behind the positions politicians took. My point is not an "oh, the old days" kind of observation; back then there were many terribly incompetent or outright rogue politicians, but the quality of the median politicians was considerably better.
> I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest.
Probably because a good steward politician is the easiest to beat with bog-standard tactics.
The closest you might find these days are politicians that their own side is always yelling at; they're likely from a secure seat and can take the blame when needed.
Probably because a good steward politician is the easiest to beat with bog-standard tactics.
The closest you might find these days are politicians that their own side is always yelling at; they're likely from a secure seat and can take the blame when needed.
> I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest.
THE major component for public involvement in politics are parties. In theory being a unit transcending election cycle they can better ensure continuity of policy. In practice, like any enterprise, the fundamental goal of parties is to remain in power, everything else being secondary.
The goal is always to get votes. Sometimes in the short term, sometimes in the long term, but it is never about policy and always about votes and subsequent power. Parties do not promote and give platform to "good politicians", but rather those who will help the party sustain power and gain more, not overthrow current lords.
If you feel represented by someone on the ballot it is simple coincidence at best and result of politics at worst. This is how politics have worked, do work and will work, by design.
THE major component for public involvement in politics are parties. In theory being a unit transcending election cycle they can better ensure continuity of policy. In practice, like any enterprise, the fundamental goal of parties is to remain in power, everything else being secondary.
The goal is always to get votes. Sometimes in the short term, sometimes in the long term, but it is never about policy and always about votes and subsequent power. Parties do not promote and give platform to "good politicians", but rather those who will help the party sustain power and gain more, not overthrow current lords.
If you feel represented by someone on the ballot it is simple coincidence at best and result of politics at worst. This is how politics have worked, do work and will work, by design.
What if one's political leanings does not include supporting a racist party?
oh please, go to Reddit for that.
The car, the computer, the spreadsheet, the internet - correct me but I believe most of these examples solved clear problems or dramatically accelerated some type of work. Each time, they succeeded because people loved this new tool enough to throw money at it - far more money than expected. That got the ball rolling to refine the offering.
I'm not sure what new problem the metaverse solves, aside from boredom (video games) or loneliness (social networking).
I'm not sure what new problem the metaverse solves, aside from boredom (video games) or loneliness (social networking).
Blackberry/RIM also saw no problem that the iPhone was solving. Sometimes markets are created with a product everyone didn't know they needed/wanted, even the first Sony Walkman.
I'm reserving judgement until I experience first-hand what it's like to share a virtual space with someone I care about when we're physically hundreds/thousands of kms apart with real-time facial expressions on a photorealistic model of their face.
I'm reserving judgement until I experience first-hand what it's like to share a virtual space with someone I care about when we're physically hundreds/thousands of kms apart with real-time facial expressions on a photorealistic model of their face.
Meta haven't made anything remotely resembling that yet, though. They've got pretty generic avatars performing canned animations in a VR environment.
It seems like it will probably take them 5-10 years of hard research, likely with many dead ends and false starts, to get there.
In Apple terms, they have announced the iPhone before doing all of the capacitive touch research and UX development that actually made the pubic want the product.
While it might be possible for them to eventually achieve their vision, it seems like a bad idea to try to drive so much hype this early with faked videos. It's very likely that the public (especially Wall Street) will lose patience waiting for them to actually make what they've promised.
It seems like it will probably take them 5-10 years of hard research, likely with many dead ends and false starts, to get there.
In Apple terms, they have announced the iPhone before doing all of the capacitive touch research and UX development that actually made the pubic want the product.
While it might be possible for them to eventually achieve their vision, it seems like a bad idea to try to drive so much hype this early with faked videos. It's very likely that the public (especially Wall Street) will lose patience waiting for them to actually make what they've promised.
With all the deepfake demos, I would think this is immediately realizable.
The facial tracking demos for Quest Pro on a deepfake of yourself would certainly be possible and compelling.
The facial tracking demos for Quest Pro on a deepfake of yourself would certainly be possible and compelling.
Blackberry/RIM would still have a place today if they had not chased the market.
A focused business device with reliable and secure communication between employees and management, as well as a week (or two) of battery life and hardware focused on stable input by hand? There’s still a hole in the market. When was the last time you absolutely trusted iOS to deliver a notification to you?
A focused business device with reliable and secure communication between employees and management, as well as a week (or two) of battery life and hardware focused on stable input by hand? There’s still a hole in the market. When was the last time you absolutely trusted iOS to deliver a notification to you?
I think AR & VR can help solve similar things to your list of technologies. Arguably the car, computer, spreadsheet, and the internet all help with the facilitation of communicating information. A case can be made for all of them having a variety of utility but I’d like to focus on the social underpinnings of all these technologies:
-Cars bring people closer to each other faster than ever before -Computers allow for us to create, present, and process information for each other in standardized ways (spreadsheets are an extension of that) -The Internet has allowed us to increase the speed of communication previously afforded by telegraphs and phone lines
As Zuckerberg says, he’s trying to further the means of communication between one another by adding the feeling of remote presence. Just like how hearing someone’s voice can be seen as a jump from reading a text from them, seeing someone else’s body in 3D space could bring a new level of connection to 2 individuals.
It also has the potential to change how we perform simulations (something valuable for many different types of work), and can even act as a way for individuals to connect themselves to different physical places on earth in a way that they may have never had the means to see otherwise.
-Cars bring people closer to each other faster than ever before -Computers allow for us to create, present, and process information for each other in standardized ways (spreadsheets are an extension of that) -The Internet has allowed us to increase the speed of communication previously afforded by telegraphs and phone lines
As Zuckerberg says, he’s trying to further the means of communication between one another by adding the feeling of remote presence. Just like how hearing someone’s voice can be seen as a jump from reading a text from them, seeing someone else’s body in 3D space could bring a new level of connection to 2 individuals.
It also has the potential to change how we perform simulations (something valuable for many different types of work), and can even act as a way for individuals to connect themselves to different physical places on earth in a way that they may have never had the means to see otherwise.
I quite like the idea of the education angle - taking your history class through a faithfully recreated Rome, or watching a re-enactment of a famous battle. Seems like a pretty engaging way to absorb information.
The product design angle also looks interesting.
It seems like the end state isn't what's available now - it's something that is the size of a pair of glasses, no pulling your phone out of your pocket, all the information you need right there.
The product design angle also looks interesting.
It seems like the end state isn't what's available now - it's something that is the size of a pair of glasses, no pulling your phone out of your pocket, all the information you need right there.
> seems like nothing more than a nerd's dream
Interesting description as that's similar to the perception of Facebook when it was first widely launched. It was even popularized in films like The Social Network with the insinuation it was designed by nerds make their lives less isolated.
Look at where we are 10 years later...
Interesting description as that's similar to the perception of Facebook when it was first widely launched. It was even popularized in films like The Social Network with the insinuation it was designed by nerds make their lives less isolated.
Look at where we are 10 years later...
That's not my recollection at all. College kids of all stripes were dying to sign up for it as it rolled out school-by-school.
> It added more than 27,000 employees in 2020 and 2021, and added an additional 15,344 in the first nine months of this year—about a fourth of that in the most recent quarter.
So it basically doubled employee count in the last three years. Insanity.
So it basically doubled employee count in the last three years. Insanity.
In some organizations, you want to hire big going into the hiring freeze, so that once the layoffs start (and you get told from higher up, "cut x%), you can keep the people you actually care about. Insanity from the point of view of the organization, but rational from the point of view of the mid-level manager.
Don't know if this is what happened at FB, but it happens in some places.
Don't know if this is what happened at FB, but it happens in some places.
Amazon actually has an 'unregretted attrition rate' metric that it holds managers to. Essentially they are expected to shed a percentage of employees annually. This metric gets gamed as "hire to fire" to keep your core team intact.
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...
"The problem is, that's not what's happening. Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. "
Oh god, this is horrific. :-/
Oh god, this is horrific. :-/
Um - if you are retired, can you take an Amazon job for a couple of months every year or two with the express goal of collecting the paychecks until you contribute to the manager's unregretted attrition rate?
Go through all the leetcode rounds with the intention to be fired?
I hope you're joking.
ura means u won't be hired again. so it's a one time thing
That's also why Amazon is running out of people to hire, because it hires and fires people so fast: https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/amazon-could-run-out-of-people...
"Amazon is sounding the alarm over an internal memo which estimates that the retail giant could run out of people to hire and man their US-based warehouses within the next 18 months, according to a report. ... “If we continue business as usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the US network by 2024,” according to the memo cited by Recode."
"Amazon is sounding the alarm over an internal memo which estimates that the retail giant could run out of people to hire and man their US-based warehouses within the next 18 months, according to a report. ... “If we continue business as usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the US network by 2024,” according to the memo cited by Recode."
I assume the 'hire to fire' metrics are for engineering; not warehouse. Two different labor pools. I assumed the warehouse attrition rates were due to the work being taxing (and audited). It pays well but you can get much more relaxed atmospheres for not much less $$ if you look.
Seems like I have been hearing (FM radio) and seeing (online) ads touting Amazon jobs like in the warehouses.
And at the same time completely expected as per Goodhart's Law.
Is that why just a rumor that you know how to code can lead AMZN recruiters to call you every week?
Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role?
Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.
Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.
The devil really doesn't need more advocates.
I hate this phrase and I'm not sure why it's getting so much more popular. It's just pithy because it concerns an unliked figure, a devil. We could easily say instead "looking at the other side of the coin" but no one would then say "the coin doesn't need more sides" because that wouldn't make any more sense.
That isn't true, though. The phrase "devil's advocate" almost always refers to taking the other side of an issue where doing so is understood to be negative. When used to low-key argue in favor of the position because one believes in shitty things--and it's usually pretty obvious!--the user of the phrase is merely telling on themselves.
"Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.
"Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.
No, the phrase is most often used to simply mean, "the other side of this discussion." In fact I almost never see it to mean what you said, to take the side of the negative side of an issue where said negative side would condemn one to be a "shitty person." It seems again that the phrasing creates this pervasive idea that the person using the phrase is using it in a fully intended negative way when it's just said off hand without thought. That is to say, it is replaceable with a phrase like "looking at the other side of the coin," as I initially stated.
Examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385
Examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385
I'm sympathetic to your view, but I worry where it leads us too. Is it people never questioning whether they're "on the right side" or doing the right thing? Some of the worst things I've seen done were done by people who thought they were doing good.
Sorry, did I imply somewhere that criticism is bad? Because heck no, and if I apologize. Counter-analysis is important! Critical, even. And there are plenty of ways to do that. Like "if I were to steelman the opposition". Or, if you're going to put your chips down: "this feels incorrect, because X."
That particular phrase is pretty much used for bad faith remarks when one wants to distance themselves from the blast radius. It's hiding the ball. Doubly so when one, as the person to whom I replied did, has to invent a situation where it'd be okay (so as to imply by transference that others are okay).
That particular phrase is pretty much used for bad faith remarks when one wants to distance themselves from the blast radius. It's hiding the ball. Doubly so when one, as the person to whom I replied did, has to invent a situation where it'd be okay (so as to imply by transference that others are okay).
You had to make up a scenario to justify your position.
Instead of doing that, discuss the scenario at hand.
There is no mention that people are being informed up front that they will be fired in 6 months, so your reply is not helpful.
Instead of doing that, discuss the scenario at hand.
There is no mention that people are being informed up front that they will be fired in 6 months, so your reply is not helpful.
It's a shame you were down voted so heavily for your question. I think it's a good one to consider. Surely at some point it does become a worthwhile deal. Imagine if they offered you $2 Mil/year? I would work my ass off and be damn happy for it for a few months knowing I'll be fired for that kind of money. Even if it were only 3 months long and I pocketed $500k, that would be a good deal to me.
Amazon already discounts equity comp. You vest 5% the first year and 15% the second year, but you get paid in cash equivalents those first two years.
If you can find one example of a hiring manager being honest about the scenario, I'll eat my RSUs
I doubt middle managers are coming from that perspective, most likely it's just "empire building", i.e. grabbing all the headcount that you can get as that gives you more clout and influence ("oh X had Y people under him, we have to promote him !")
An additional role for "The Project Scapegoat" in Dilbert.
https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15
https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15
I would say “hiring big” in the context you mention is nowhere near the level of hiring mentioned in the parent comment.
Ahh the good ol' hire to fire
And when you consider the fact that pretty much every other tech company did the same wild overhiring in those same years, where did all this new talent suddenly show up from? The simple answer – it didn't. The companies just lowered their hiring bar wayyy down to fill quotas, and are now suffering because of it.
Or they just hire everybody else's employees? Anecdotally, we tried to hire during the past few years as a mid-sized, well known tech company, pretty much nobody showed up. It got so bad we had to stop giving coding tests because nobody was passing them.
And this is with great pay and perks. I can't imagine how are traditional companies were hiring tech people.
And this is with great pay and perks. I can't imagine how are traditional companies were hiring tech people.
>And this is with great pay and perks
How do you know the pay was great? Because you were offering twice what existing employees make, as one does?
And as far as "great perks", does that mean healthcare with almost no out-of-pocket costs and a leave policy that is attractive to people who want to have a family, or does it mean a foosball table and free k-cups?
How do you know the pay was great? Because you were offering twice what existing employees make, as one does?
And as far as "great perks", does that mean healthcare with almost no out-of-pocket costs and a leave policy that is attractive to people who want to have a family, or does it mean a foosball table and free k-cups?
Pay at big tech companies is well known, we were competitive with that.
No out-of-pocket healthcare costs actually. 14wk parental leave for both parents, unlimited sick days, 20 days PTO, something like 15 holidays etc. Not a scam.
No out-of-pocket healthcare costs actually. 14wk parental leave for both parents, unlimited sick days, 20 days PTO, something like 15 holidays etc. Not a scam.
Which company was this?
If the marginal return per employee is still good then "lowering the bar" makes sense, not lowering the bar would be throwing money away - right?
And during the pandemic certainly some of the new talent showing up was good, things changed and people stuck in jobs they were actually "too good for" moved on.
I wouldn't assume it was "filling quotas" - it was filling positions and the positions existed for some reason, they were making a lot of money and there was probably more work to do!
And during the pandemic certainly some of the new talent showing up was good, things changed and people stuck in jobs they were actually "too good for" moved on.
I wouldn't assume it was "filling quotas" - it was filling positions and the positions existed for some reason, they were making a lot of money and there was probably more work to do!
You have to keep in mind that in this type of organization, managers are highly incentivized to grow their teams, by all means.
The number of people "under" you is the dick measuring tape.
The number of people "under" you is the dick measuring tape.
At my last company, the team's budget for merit increases was based upon the size of the team. More headcount meant more money available for promotions and fixing historical pay imbalances. It was not a good system that directly caused good employees to leave.
This size=power issue is in my opinion an often-underestimated flaw of organization relying on middle-management.
"Filling quotas" vs "hiring as many people as I can for clout" are different things and I suppose both are possible, but one imagines that both are enabled by the fundamental metric of generating revenue as justification.
You hire ahead of growth, so you need to overcorrect when contraction occurs so it makes sense that if revenues are now shrinking so are the staffing levels.. it kinda feels like these explanations are projecting some weird politics on to very basic business logic.
You hire ahead of growth, so you need to overcorrect when contraction occurs so it makes sense that if revenues are now shrinking so are the staffing levels.. it kinda feels like these explanations are projecting some weird politics on to very basic business logic.
Traditionally, Facebook hired in line with revenue, to keep revenue per head constant.
It's crazy phenomenon going on.. hiring people a lot and laying off them later..
Irony is these companies developing AI algorithms to analyse humans and their behaviours.. but failed to predict their workforce requirements..
Irony is these companies developing AI algorithms to analyse humans and their behaviours.. but failed to predict their workforce requirements..
Did it occur to you that the fired fodder trained the AI :p
Only crazy as growth stalled. If it kept pace with prior years they’d of had doubled revenue in that time frame
Perhaps, but once you're as big as FB, you should be able to guess that your growth rate will inevitably slow. No company that big keeps growing at the same rate, or they'd take over the entire economy in short order. AT&T, GE, IBM, Dell, Microsoft, all had their growth rate slow as they got big. If FB was hiring on the assumption that it wouldn't happen to them, they were foolish to do so.
It's also a way to take advantage of high-priced stock while they can. Of course that doesn't mean they should hire recklessly and pay through the nose for people to do VR research or whatever that won't pay off this decade.
I still, after all these years, hold the belief that facebook failed to innovate because the engineering interview is based on memorization. Having worked with those types of engineers, they can absolutely build exactly what is needed. But abstract and engaging product vision does not come easily with them. Outsourcing that capability to an attractive and charismatic product manager can never close that gap.
Google, Apple, Microsoft, TikTok, Tesla, NVidia and the vast majority of tech companies of all sizes that have been using this exact same interview process for decades are managing to innovate just fine.
Facebook's problem has never been engineering. Blame its leadership and the product decisions they made (like dumping $4B a quarter into a "metaverse" that nobody wants).
Facebook's problem has never been engineering. Blame its leadership and the product decisions they made (like dumping $4B a quarter into a "metaverse" that nobody wants).
Not quite. Facebook is the pinnacle of memorization. Google is similar and is absolutely not innovating, they just have a monopoly on search, and a bunch of side projects copying other companies (AWS, Microsoft Word) etc. Microsoft does not interview like that, and TikTok is a copy of FB funded by the CCP. Tesla does not ask leetcode hard interview questions. Neither does Amazon. I am intimately familiar with the interview process.
> TikTok is a copy of FB funded by the CCP.
With all due respect — Facebook (the product) is one of the social platforms furthest from TikTok. Even roughly equating them sounds like you might not use, know, or understand any of them. Vine, YouTube, or Snapchat maybe — they all differ in different ways — or even Insta I get ... But Facebook?
With all due respect — Facebook (the product) is one of the social platforms furthest from TikTok. Even roughly equating them sounds like you might not use, know, or understand any of them. Vine, YouTube, or Snapchat maybe — they all differ in different ways — or even Insta I get ... But Facebook?
I think he's specifically taking about the algorithm. Tiktok can be friendless, but so can Reels and Youtube. In the end Tiktok is a similar concept to Facebook when you consider that it's catered content.
TikTok is not a copy of Facebook. The fact Facebook/Meta/Instagram is trying desperately to copy them is proof of that.
The algorithm is drastically better, but is also better because TikTok doesnt have as strong as a need for profit. Its a long story, and yes its a good product. But its an incremental algorithmic change, not a new product category
TBH I have no idea what you are talking about. There have even been a bunch of articles along the lines of "the social network is dead". That is, Facebook is all about who your friends are and your overall social network. TikTok has none of that - it's about following and finding content that is entertaining, not that an old friend just had a baby.
Heck, a big part of TikTok was Musical.ly, an app for lip syncing videos. That was a huge stroke of luck/foresight because it gave TikTok a lot of the music rights deals they would need to allow people to put videos to music.
Are you really arguing an app around individual videos set to music (which, in my experience, is still the vast majority of TikTok videos) is somehow an "incremental product change" to a friends-based social network?
Heck, a big part of TikTok was Musical.ly, an app for lip syncing videos. That was a huge stroke of luck/foresight because it gave TikTok a lot of the music rights deals they would need to allow people to put videos to music.
Are you really arguing an app around individual videos set to music (which, in my experience, is still the vast majority of TikTok videos) is somehow an "incremental product change" to a friends-based social network?
I'm too busy to explain it. But in short, the facebook/instagram (and youtube) algorithms are built to optimize:
1. Content that is profitable from an advertising perspective
2. Censoring certain content/only showing major/authoritative sources.
TikTok changed that by allowing grass roots content to go viral, which from an algorithmic perspective is less profitable. But that doesnt matter, its backed by the CCP. Theres alot that goes into why tiktok is better, and alot of it is monetary/business related, not computer science.
But beyond that, FB/Google just got lazy and stopped pushing for new things. Wildly successful and presumed monopolies, they left a massive product gap (allowing grass roots content to go viral), which TikTok filled.
1. Content that is profitable from an advertising perspective
2. Censoring certain content/only showing major/authoritative sources.
TikTok changed that by allowing grass roots content to go viral, which from an algorithmic perspective is less profitable. But that doesnt matter, its backed by the CCP. Theres alot that goes into why tiktok is better, and alot of it is monetary/business related, not computer science.
But beyond that, FB/Google just got lazy and stopped pushing for new things. Wildly successful and presumed monopolies, they left a massive product gap (allowing grass roots content to go viral), which TikTok filled.
Also TikTok seems to use a multi-armed bandit to balance explore/exploit in a way that previous sites didn't.
TikTok have much better labelled training data, because you need to interact.
Correct. TikTok is a worse version of Facebook, funnelling data back to the CCP (as required), spying on certain individuals physical locations [0] on the platform, and creators are once again working for its algorithm that can dictate what is seen and unseen, for the content to be seen by billions, just like before.
They hype around it is because it is the current thing.
[0] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
They hype around it is because it is the current thing.
[0] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
[deleted]
> Microsoft does not interview like that [...] Neither does Amazon
This is straight up wrong. Both companies ask difficult algorithms questions in their interviews.
This is straight up wrong. Both companies ask difficult algorithms questions in their interviews.
"difficult" is relative, MS and Amazon interviews are considered jokes/warmups compared to some of the other places that are basically asking competitive programming questions
FB did technical innovation just fine. The problem is with the product, and this is not something that engineers solve.
The problem is that it should be something that engineers solve. Non technical product managers from top schools are not equipped to drive innovation if they are not on the technical ground level.
And yet i still think the facebook page sucks tremendously from an engineering pov. It hasn't evolved in years feature wise and yet it still slows to a crawl whenever i launch it.
Totally unimpressed.
Totally unimpressed.
I use (try to sometimes) the Facebook lite app on Android. It rarely opens. Just sits there spinning on the logo screen. It has been consistently acting like this for years through several updates of both Android and the app...on various phones. Shrug.
Did amazon change recently? I got leetcoded there. I even applied to a web dev role using ruby on rails and was blindsided by the hard trick questions.
No, the person saying they don't do LC hard questions is not correct. Most are going to be LC medium but they do ask LC hard in some interviews. I can in fact point to two questions I was asked by Amazon in the last few months and I worked there for several years. In any event they are mostly LC medium, possibly LC hard--exactly what you should expect from a FB interview in the past couple of years.
[deleted]
> a "metaverse" that nobody wants
This is going to be the next famous “nobody wants Dropbox” comment.
I don’t know if Horizon Worlds is going to be successful, but Reality Labs is much, much bigger than that. Do you honestly believe no one wants VR and AR? Seriously?
Think about gaming alone. Think about sitting on an airplane with three 50” monitors overlaid with your vision, where you can actually code, or do whatever. Travel, education, shopping, entertainment. The possibilities are endless.
This stuff is basically already possible today, and maybe a couple years away from a legitimately good experience.
Meta is way out in the lead on this. When the media talks about the spending on Metaverse, they’re always imagining Horizon Worlds. I think it’s entirely possible Horizon Worlds becomes successful. I mean, my company does some watercooler meetings in gather.towns, where you have a tiny little 32x32 pixel avatar. It’s entirely possible in a few years we’ll be doing these in Horizon Worlds. But even if we’re not, and that’s entirely bunk, Reality Labs is still the leading VR headset manufacturer, with a ton of software to make it all possible, still has an entire games division in Oculus Studios, and much more.
People definitely want this stuff. It’s early days still, and Reality Labs is definitely burning cash rapidly, but they also sold a billion dollars of headsets over the past year.
This is going to be the next famous “nobody wants Dropbox” comment.
I don’t know if Horizon Worlds is going to be successful, but Reality Labs is much, much bigger than that. Do you honestly believe no one wants VR and AR? Seriously?
Think about gaming alone. Think about sitting on an airplane with three 50” monitors overlaid with your vision, where you can actually code, or do whatever. Travel, education, shopping, entertainment. The possibilities are endless.
This stuff is basically already possible today, and maybe a couple years away from a legitimately good experience.
Meta is way out in the lead on this. When the media talks about the spending on Metaverse, they’re always imagining Horizon Worlds. I think it’s entirely possible Horizon Worlds becomes successful. I mean, my company does some watercooler meetings in gather.towns, where you have a tiny little 32x32 pixel avatar. It’s entirely possible in a few years we’ll be doing these in Horizon Worlds. But even if we’re not, and that’s entirely bunk, Reality Labs is still the leading VR headset manufacturer, with a ton of software to make it all possible, still has an entire games division in Oculus Studios, and much more.
People definitely want this stuff. It’s early days still, and Reality Labs is definitely burning cash rapidly, but they also sold a billion dollars of headsets over the past year.
Do they though...? They've been saying that about VR since the VirtualBoy, and still nobody wants it. It's just some super niche activity that's novel for all of a couple hours and then quickly gets old. yawn I bet we'll still be hearing about proper VR is just around the corner, twenty years from now...
The growth in VR headsets is quickly becoming a hockey stick. 5 million in 2020, 8 million this year, 11 million projected next year, with an install base of 25 million.
To put this in perspective, there were 8 million PS5 sales in 2022, and 6.5 million Xbox X.
I realize this is not quite an apt comparison, and I’m lumping all VR headsets from all manufacturers together. But this is rapidly becoming a big deal.
To put this in perspective, there were 8 million PS5 sales in 2022, and 6.5 million Xbox X.
I realize this is not quite an apt comparison, and I’m lumping all VR headsets from all manufacturers together. But this is rapidly becoming a big deal.
vs more than a billion smartphones sold, 300 million PCs, 30 million monitors...
It was only fifteen years ago that the original iPhone launched with 6 million units sold.
Look, I’m not necessarily claiming Quest VR headsets will be the next iPhone. But I think it’s pretty likely this will be a big and important product over the next few years.
Look, I’m not necessarily claiming Quest VR headsets will be the next iPhone. But I think it’s pretty likely this will be a big and important product over the next few years.
>Think about sitting on an airplane with three 50” monitors overlaid with your vision, where you can actually code, or do whatever. Travel, education, shopping, entertainment. The possibilities are endless.
I would much rather look out the window, read or sleep.
I would much rather look out the window, read or sleep.
>Do you honestly believe no one wants VR and AR?
That's not important question, that question is, do enough people want this that it will pay off.
I mean I heard that 3D TV was the shit a decade ago, but we don't much of that around.
That's not important question, that question is, do enough people want this that it will pay off.
I mean I heard that 3D TV was the shit a decade ago, but we don't much of that around.
How many people spend so much of their time on airplanes that they need to optimize it? The average flights/year is around 1 per person.
When (if) they solve the balance/vomit inducing nature of the VR headsets and find a way not to ruin your eyes because they are focused at 2cm for extended periods of time, maybe VR will take off.
Until then, VR is a nausea inducing gimmick like 3D TV that adds precisely nothing to any kind of human interaction.
Augmented reality... that has some actual uses. VR is not even that good for games, let alone the fantasy of having a meeting enhanced by using it.
Until then, VR is a nausea inducing gimmick like 3D TV that adds precisely nothing to any kind of human interaction.
Augmented reality... that has some actual uses. VR is not even that good for games, let alone the fantasy of having a meeting enhanced by using it.
Eyes are not focused at 2cm in VR, that's ridiculous. The focus distance is several meters but it varies between sets. You notice this when objects get close to you and your natural instinct causes you to focus closer, making the entire field of view go out of focus.
I upvoted you because I agree overall, but it’s absolutely wrong that VR isn’t good for games. The first time I played a game in VR was a mind-blowing experience.
> Think about gaming alone. Think about sitting on an airplane with three 50” monitors overlaid with your vision, where you can actually code, or do whatever.
The common feature of metaverse bulls seems to be asserting without evidence that pixel density will increase massively from its current state, such that emulating several monitors will be viable.
I see no reason to believe this is true. It’s not the case that all technology you can imagine will eventually exist. Things always level off eventually, which is why I don’t have a 10 GHz processor today.
The common feature of metaverse bulls seems to be asserting without evidence that pixel density will increase massively from its current state, such that emulating several monitors will be viable.
I see no reason to believe this is true. It’s not the case that all technology you can imagine will eventually exist. Things always level off eventually, which is why I don’t have a 10 GHz processor today.
I agree there are limitations, but Meta announced Project Cambria last year, with an expected resolution of 1230 DPI, up from 770 on Quest Pro.
If they can achieve that, people are going to start doing real work on the headsets.
If they can achieve that, people are going to start doing real work on the headsets.
What DPI do you estimate would be needed to emulate three 50-inch monitors?
To be honest, I’m not an expert, and you’d just be getting a lay opinion. They say human vision can discern about 60 pixels per degree. I believe Quest Pro achieves about 20, and Project Cambria might push 30.
Note that the 1200 DPI is per eye.
Note that the 1200 DPI is per eye.
>Think about sitting on an airplane with three 50” monitors overlaid with your vision
What will anyone do with that, except watch funny cat videos?
What will anyone do with that, except watch funny cat videos?
Any number of things. These are just like regular desktop monitors, just virtual. You can have an IDE open on one, a browser on another, email on another. Or whatever you normally use a monitor for.
The resolution is not quite there yet, but it’s getting close.
Horizon Workroom, along with Horizon Remote Desktop are tools that allow you do real tasks in VR/AR.
The resolution is not quite there yet, but it’s getting close.
Horizon Workroom, along with Horizon Remote Desktop are tools that allow you do real tasks in VR/AR.
>These are just like regular desktop monitors,
Funny cat videos it is.
Funny cat videos it is.
>This is going to be the next famous “nobody wants Dropbox” comment.
Did you bet money on that?
e.g by purchasing meta stocks
Did you bet money on that?
e.g by purchasing meta stocks
Google’s interview process is not based on memorization in the same way Facebook’s is (or at least was when I worked there 3 years ago).
Facebook makes zero effort to retire questions that have leaked on Leetcode and similar sites, so memorization really does give you a huge advantage. All the coding questions I regularly asked people were literally on the “Facebook” section on Leetcode.
Facebook makes zero effort to retire questions that have leaked on Leetcode and similar sites, so memorization really does give you a huge advantage. All the coding questions I regularly asked people were literally on the “Facebook” section on Leetcode.
Facebook is one of the most innovative software companies out there:
- Cassandra
- Hiphop VM
- Flow
- React
- GraphQL
- zstd
- PyTorch
- rocksdb
I hate Facebook to my core, but this is pretty undeniable. You gotta re-examine your priors on this one.
- Cassandra
- Hiphop VM
- Flow
- React
- GraphQL
- zstd
- PyTorch
- rocksdb
I hate Facebook to my core, but this is pretty undeniable. You gotta re-examine your priors on this one.
I always forget that cassandra wasn't built by yahoo because it absolutely fits with their model of taking a whitepaper and building an unmaintainable heap out of it.
No the working Cassandra was built by Amazon. It’s called dynamodb.
Innovative software! Not product. React alone is a brilliant front end framework that changed the web. PyTorch as well.
Amazon does not produce the same level of open source, or anywhere close, but the products are more varied and far better.
Amazon does not produce the same level of open source, or anywhere close, but the products are more varied and far better.
But your original post said:
> I still, after all these years, hold the belief that facebook failed to innovate because the engineering interview is based on memorization. Having worked with those types of engineers, they can absolutely build exactly what is needed.
I think the fact that so much engineering innovation has come out of Facebook absolutely disproves your thesis. Also, while I've interviewed for Amazon (but not FB), I don't think Amazon's technical interview questions were really any different from any other big tech companies I've interviewed at. They certainly didn't seem to optimize for any sort of "innovation" in their tech questions (to be clear, I'm not sure how you'd do that).
> I still, after all these years, hold the belief that facebook failed to innovate because the engineering interview is based on memorization. Having worked with those types of engineers, they can absolutely build exactly what is needed.
I think the fact that so much engineering innovation has come out of Facebook absolutely disproves your thesis. Also, while I've interviewed for Amazon (but not FB), I don't think Amazon's technical interview questions were really any different from any other big tech companies I've interviewed at. They certainly didn't seem to optimize for any sort of "innovation" in their tech questions (to be clear, I'm not sure how you'd do that).
Amazon is much easier from a raw algorithms perspective, but much harder from a behavioral interview perspective. I used to work at Amazon and conducted over 50 interviews. Amazon selects for a different personality type than Facebook. It's also true that alot of interview rejects at Facebook get into Amazon
Asking engineers to innovate on the product side is the same as asking product managers to invent better programming languages.
There is such a thing as a product-minded engineer, but FB's interview process does not select for them.
How did react change the web?
Creating highly interactive web applications is far easier using React (and the surrounding ecosystem) than using plain Javascript.
At least a few of these are derivative of other projects.
I don't deny the engineering innovation of Facebook but it must be moderated to some extent by the way ideas are flowing between engineers at mega-corps, probably from at least Bell Labs, if not earlier.
I don't deny the engineering innovation of Facebook but it must be moderated to some extent by the way ideas are flowing between engineers at mega-corps, probably from at least Bell Labs, if not earlier.
Algorithm interviews never worked it was just a filtering mechanism so they could access cheaper labor. The reality is you have no idea if someone is qualified for their job until you hire them. Everything else are just signals. Fuzzy at best.
I don’t think it’s cheapening the labor… it’s a way to filter the pool at the cost of missing some gems.
Basically it will filter more bad than good but it will still filter good.
Basically it will filter more bad than good but it will still filter good.
It's a poor filter and well tech salaries are artificially high the reality is most companies can afford to hire tens of thousands of developers to work on projects but instead then only hire the bare minimum.
I assure you there are plenty of engineers with abstract and engaging product vision at Meta. There are some genuinely difficult problems to solve at their scale and they are incredibly creative at it.
Exactly. This is such a weird take. Just spend a few minutes browsing through some recent tech blog posts from Meta and you'll realize the scale they have to deal with and creativity for solving these problems.
I get that you dislike this format. There are legitimate critcisms. But to extrapolate this to a company-wide strategy failure is beyond ludicrous and simply belies just how much you detest whiteboard coding. Please, for your own sake, try and separate your personal dislikes from objective judgements.
Meta is product-driven not engineering-driven. How engineers are hired doesn't really matter because it's generally not engineers at the helm.
Meta is in the position they are because post-WhatsApp there has been no company strategy. First it was the post-2016 election fallout of fighting misinformation, which was never going to work and isn't really the problem anyway, followed by a brief foray into crypto and finally the eye-watering boondoggle that is the metaverse, the answer to the question no one asked.
None of that has anything to do with hiring engineering ICs with whiteboard coding interviews and it's crazy to suggest it is.
Meta is product-driven not engineering-driven. How engineers are hired doesn't really matter because it's generally not engineers at the helm.
Meta is in the position they are because post-WhatsApp there has been no company strategy. First it was the post-2016 election fallout of fighting misinformation, which was never going to work and isn't really the problem anyway, followed by a brief foray into crypto and finally the eye-watering boondoggle that is the metaverse, the answer to the question no one asked.
None of that has anything to do with hiring engineering ICs with whiteboard coding interviews and it's crazy to suggest it is.
I have worked at two FAANGs. It's obvious to me that there is no vision, just raw execution on strictly defined design documents. The product decisions come from a place that is commonly never even exposed to the engineer.
"Meta is product-driven not engineering-driven."
My point exactly. Divorcing product management from technical implementation is a fools errand in an extremely technical company.
When every engineer is focussed on execution, it adds up. Interesting engineering led ideas cannot lead the company in new directions.
"Meta is product-driven not engineering-driven."
My point exactly. Divorcing product management from technical implementation is a fools errand in an extremely technical company.
When every engineer is focussed on execution, it adds up. Interesting engineering led ideas cannot lead the company in new directions.
Surely someone is writing the strictly-defined design documents.
>None of that has anything to do with hiring engineering ICs with whiteboard coding interviews and it's crazy to suggest it is.
you don't think dangling a massive salary behind an easily gamed interview format can lead to problems and attract the wrong type of people to a company? FAANG is now attracting people who would have been on Wall Street 20 years ago. They are money chasers, not the type of people who actually build things
>Meta is in the position they are because post-WhatsApp there has been no company strategy
>How engineers are hired doesn't really matter because it's generally not engineers at the helm
you don't see the dissonance between these 2 statements? Maybe if you had builders with opinions instead of coding robots who follow instructions they wouldn't be such a mess
you don't think dangling a massive salary behind an easily gamed interview format can lead to problems and attract the wrong type of people to a company? FAANG is now attracting people who would have been on Wall Street 20 years ago. They are money chasers, not the type of people who actually build things
>Meta is in the position they are because post-WhatsApp there has been no company strategy
>How engineers are hired doesn't really matter because it's generally not engineers at the helm
you don't see the dissonance between these 2 statements? Maybe if you had builders with opinions instead of coding robots who follow instructions they wouldn't be such a mess
> failed to innovate because the engineering interview is based on memorization
Disclaimer: I'm a software engineer myself.
I think if a company considers product innovation as part of its software engineers duties, they have already failed.
Software engineers innovate on technical solutions, they are the bridge between innovative products and their implementation, and it happens that they can bring out innovative product, but innovation is the job of product people, not software people.
I know some on HN would like to believe that software engineers are the ultimate worker that can and should do everything and anything, but it's not the case.
Disclaimer: I'm a software engineer myself.
I think if a company considers product innovation as part of its software engineers duties, they have already failed.
Software engineers innovate on technical solutions, they are the bridge between innovative products and their implementation, and it happens that they can bring out innovative product, but innovation is the job of product people, not software people.
I know some on HN would like to believe that software engineers are the ultimate worker that can and should do everything and anything, but it's not the case.
Without that ability to share, shift, or generate a vision you’ll be limited.
The best engineers I’ve seen are doing far more than just solving coding and system design problems for existing issues.
Also a software engineer, though I’ve moved to the management side (I miss the engineering focus).
The best engineers I’ve seen are doing far more than just solving coding and system design problems for existing issues.
Also a software engineer, though I’ve moved to the management side (I miss the engineering focus).
I agree with that, and I don't doubt that Facebook has the capability in place to leverage the ideas brought by those people. All I'm saying is that if a company is _relying_ on software engineers to drive innovation, they're doomed.
Why don't you doubt it? They have failed to leverage and put into place new radical ideas
[deleted]
So I'm missing out on 6/7 figure salary due to not memorizing stuff? Oy vey.
> But abstract and engaging product vision does not come easily with them
Well it's a good thing neither of those are particularly necessary or even going to be received well at them.
After all - this is why you have PMs. It's not engineers who are dictating the direction product is going. It's the PMs and execs.
Well it's a good thing neither of those are particularly necessary or even going to be received well at them.
After all - this is why you have PMs. It's not engineers who are dictating the direction product is going. It's the PMs and execs.
"How can I make this about my inability to answer basic algorithms questions"
I have worked at two FAANGs. On a daily basis I see how the sausage is made. I currently work on an AI platform for a product 100M people use
Housing in SF/SV is in trouble. Last week alone we had Twitter (3700), Stripe (1000), Lyft (700), Opendoor (550), and now FB (probably 5000). Obviously not every employee resides in that region but it's a good ~40% of the workforce [edit: of these companies].
For twitter, here are the actual number for the bay area, according to state filings[0]
* SF: 784
* San Jose: 106
Still high numbers IMO but SF for example has ~800k residents, so this only represents ~0.1% of the total population. Not super convinced yet that it's going to have any immediate impact on housing in the city unless this triggers a much larger avalanche of firings that don't have an associated swarm of smaller companies waiting in the wings to pick good employees up at a discount.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Here-s-how-many-...
* SF: 784
* San Jose: 106
Still high numbers IMO but SF for example has ~800k residents, so this only represents ~0.1% of the total population. Not super convinced yet that it's going to have any immediate impact on housing in the city unless this triggers a much larger avalanche of firings that don't have an associated swarm of smaller companies waiting in the wings to pick good employees up at a discount.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Here-s-how-many-...
Housing is a very "tipping point" thing - if there are 100 houses for sale and 101 buyers, prices will rise until one buyer drops out. If there are 100 houses and 99 buyers, prices will drop until another buyer appears or a seller takes a house off the market.
It's not exact, but small changes can have large effects.
However SF likely has a huge waiting list of people who would like to move in, so it's not likely to take effect immediately.
It's not exact, but small changes can have large effects.
However SF likely has a huge waiting list of people who would like to move in, so it's not likely to take effect immediately.
>However SF likely has a huge waiting list of people who would like to move in, so it's not likely to take effect immediately.
Unlikely -- take a look at the average rent trends. It hasn't recovered to even pre-pandemic levels. https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-francisco-ca
Unlikely -- take a look at the average rent trends. It hasn't recovered to even pre-pandemic levels. https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-francisco-ca
> Not super convinced yet that it's going to have any immediate impact on housing in the city
It's not "Twitter layoffs cause issues" - it's more that if you can identify 5, 10, 15+ well known companies doing layoffs concentrated in that area there is probably also a very long tail of smaller companies doing layoffs also. Cumulative effect of it all can be quite large.
> ~40% of the workforce
This is an enormous exaggeration. However, even a 4-5% reduction in jobs in the area can have an enormous effect on the economy and housing market.
It's not "Twitter layoffs cause issues" - it's more that if you can identify 5, 10, 15+ well known companies doing layoffs concentrated in that area there is probably also a very long tail of smaller companies doing layoffs also. Cumulative effect of it all can be quite large.
> ~40% of the workforce
This is an enormous exaggeration. However, even a 4-5% reduction in jobs in the area can have an enormous effect on the economy and housing market.
I think the 40% number was about the ratio of people let go that reside in SF.
How does ~1000 represent 0.001% of 800k?
whoops decimals mixup, will edit:
784 / 815,201 = 0.00096 = 0.1%
784 / 815,201 = 0.00096 = 0.1%
To the degree that housing in the area is in trouble, I still have to guess that the impact of the recent large layoffs must be dwarfed by the impact from interest rate changes. Of the people that still have jobs and feel secure in them, their cashflow will still get them much less house than a year ago. For those that had some form of equity compensation, the value of that has probably dropped sharply. I.e. people who would otherwise be potential home-buyers will be making significantly smaller offers, even if they still have jobs.
I think there are a number of recently completed or near-completion condo buildings that are going to be in trouble, having been planned around sale-price expectations which now seem hard to reach. But in the broader and longer-term view, doesn't the fact still remain that we have too little housing in the region?
I think there are a number of recently completed or near-completion condo buildings that are going to be in trouble, having been planned around sale-price expectations which now seem hard to reach. But in the broader and longer-term view, doesn't the fact still remain that we have too little housing in the region?
> I still have to guess that the impact of the recent large layoffs must be dwarfed by the impact from interest rate changes
Two sides of the same coin. It'll be brutal. Bay area home prices will fall by at least 40% from 2021 highs by end of 2024.
Two sides of the same coin. It'll be brutal. Bay area home prices will fall by at least 40% from 2021 highs by end of 2024.
> It'll be brutal. Bay area home prices will fall by at least 40% from 2021 highs by end of 2024.
This is a perfect distillation of "bad news leads". A year ago, threads like this were filled with complaints that bay area housing development and pricing was completely unsustainable and that the values and rents were simply too high to permit the needed workforce to live there.
Now fast forward, the situation is correcting itself, and... that's not good. In fact it's "brutal".
Really, what did we actually want? This is what dropping housing prices looks like. Any time prices change some people win and some people lose.
(From my perspective, FWIW: yeah, this is a sorely needed correction and while it must suck to be a property owner right now there's no way we were ever going to sustain that ridiculous bubble.)
This is a perfect distillation of "bad news leads". A year ago, threads like this were filled with complaints that bay area housing development and pricing was completely unsustainable and that the values and rents were simply too high to permit the needed workforce to live there.
Now fast forward, the situation is correcting itself, and... that's not good. In fact it's "brutal".
Really, what did we actually want? This is what dropping housing prices looks like. Any time prices change some people win and some people lose.
(From my perspective, FWIW: yeah, this is a sorely needed correction and while it must suck to be a property owner right now there's no way we were ever going to sustain that ridiculous bubble.)
Probably the "best result" for everyone would be prices stagnating for 10-20 years (could this happen? maybe) and let inflation slowly bring them back to a sane percentage of income.
My suspicion is that this is what the Fed wanted, but that meant inflation at 8%+ for 5-10 years to crush non productive asset prices.
Doesn't that presume that salaries will keep up with inflation?
That's "bad news leads" again! Discussion about "inflation" always presumes that it hurts everyone, even though (by definition) it's just a rescaling of an existing economy and that for every loser there's a winner.
In fact salaries in the bay area have been rising ahead of and faster than inflation, so yes, it seems like a good bet. Also property owners (remember them from upthread?) are broadly helped by inflation as their mortgages aren't inflation-indexed (i.e. inflation makes their total debt go down in real value).
But none of that nuance matters, because bad news leads.
In fact salaries in the bay area have been rising ahead of and faster than inflation, so yes, it seems like a good bet. Also property owners (remember them from upthread?) are broadly helped by inflation as their mortgages aren't inflation-indexed (i.e. inflation makes their total debt go down in real value).
But none of that nuance matters, because bad news leads.
In general inflation helps those with debt and hurts those with savings.
But even if raises and such occur, they don't happen instantaneously, and so people don't like inflation. Gas prices can go up tomorrow, but you won't get a cost-of-living increase for half a year or more.
For those who have the vast majority of their debt in a 30 year fixed loan on a house, inflation is kinda nice once you get past the rough parts.
But even if raises and such occur, they don't happen instantaneously, and so people don't like inflation. Gas prices can go up tomorrow, but you won't get a cost-of-living increase for half a year or more.
For those who have the vast majority of their debt in a 30 year fixed loan on a house, inflation is kinda nice once you get past the rough parts.
> Gas prices can go up tomorrow, but you won't get a cost-of-living increase for half a year or more.
And what if prices are going up tomorrow BECAUSE everyone got a "cost-of-living" increase last year? They did! And they tried to buy stuff with the excess cash, and there wasn't enough stuff, so prices went up. (Obviously real causes are complicated, and supply shock is a big part of the current inflation drivers and not just demand, but you get the point.)
This is exactly what I'm saying: bad news leads. We don't want to talk about the flip side of natural relationships, we just want to complain.
[1] That's not a thing, by the way. All raises are for cause, even if they call it "cost of living" what they really mean is "retention".
And what if prices are going up tomorrow BECAUSE everyone got a "cost-of-living" increase last year? They did! And they tried to buy stuff with the excess cash, and there wasn't enough stuff, so prices went up. (Obviously real causes are complicated, and supply shock is a big part of the current inflation drivers and not just demand, but you get the point.)
This is exactly what I'm saying: bad news leads. We don't want to talk about the flip side of natural relationships, we just want to complain.
[1] That's not a thing, by the way. All raises are for cause, even if they call it "cost of living" what they really mean is "retention".
Broadly, they have to but that doesn't mean that tech salaries will - they've so far outstripped inflation over the last 20 years that they could stagnate or drop for 10-20 years and still be way ahead.
How do you arrive at 40%? The peninsula has never experienced such a drastic decline since.. ever.
Even through the dotcom bubble and 2008 financial crisis.
Even through the dotcom bubble and 2008 financial crisis.
Home prices tend to be a function of 30-yr mortgage payments.
$1.5m @ 2.50% yielded a ~$6k/mo P&I payment last year
$868k @ 7.25% yields a ~$6k/mo P&I payment currently.
The price of this theoretical home need to drop ~40% to result in the same monthly payment. Home prices won't drop until people are forced to sell and widespread layoffs are just the catalyst necessary.
$1.5m @ 2.50% yielded a ~$6k/mo P&I payment last year
$868k @ 7.25% yields a ~$6k/mo P&I payment currently.
The price of this theoretical home need to drop ~40% to result in the same monthly payment. Home prices won't drop until people are forced to sell and widespread layoffs are just the catalyst necessary.
Rent also comes into play.
But just like any market the prices may not be connected to those fundamentals. It depends on expectations.
But yes, the perfect storm was always going to be rates going up and a recession and if this isn't the perfect storm then what is. Well, my house is up 40% since I bought it exactly two years ago so I think I'll survive (I knew I was taking some risk). [EDIT: Not in the Bay Area]
But just like any market the prices may not be connected to those fundamentals. It depends on expectations.
But yes, the perfect storm was always going to be rates going up and a recession and if this isn't the perfect storm then what is. Well, my house is up 40% since I bought it exactly two years ago so I think I'll survive (I knew I was taking some risk). [EDIT: Not in the Bay Area]
No one got a $1.5m loan @ 2.5%. More like 3.25%
It was definitely possible for those with 800+ credit shopping around last year. The online stats don’t reflect the best case scenario.
Sure, I follow. At the same time, we've still got tons of all-cash buyers in the Bay Area. Those $6.5m+ POS properties are still selling like hot cakes (surprisingly).
Outside of SV, I expect you'll see such a drop.
Outside of SV, I expect you'll see such a drop.
I'm curious how many are paying cash and how many are using delayed financing to make cash offers? The latter is usually just a mortgage + a fee to get the advantage of a cash offer. I know these shot up in popularity during covid but I don't know where you'd find stats on the split.
Point being, if most of those cash offers are really a 30-year mortgage in a trench coat, the peninsula might slump very quickly in the near future.
Point being, if most of those cash offers are really a 30-year mortgage in a trench coat, the peninsula might slump very quickly in the near future.
Real estate isn't my full-time job at the moment, so I'm the wrong person to ask! All I can say is there's still a ton of cash sloshing around Silicon Valley. It could be awhile before is dried out, if ever. The VCs still have a ton of dry powder and they aren't moving out of Sandhill.
I agree it may be a bit more muted in the Bay area, though in dotcom we saw a 10% retraction and great-recession saw a 30% retraction.
Thanks for this, the logic looks sound and flawless. I'll definitely be using this when making future valuations with lenders.
He's just trying to make me happy by telling a beautiful fantasy tale
"And you'll have a yard without committing to a 3 million dollar investment!"
Oh well, back to patching the grout on my dilapidated million dollar shithole condo..
"And you'll have a yard without committing to a 3 million dollar investment!"
Oh well, back to patching the grout on my dilapidated million dollar shithole condo..
Yeah, I'm still going to buy that house this quarter. Not too worried about the long-term value, there is literally no more land area to develop in the western region of the Bay Area.
Semi-related: What's the deal with all the empty land between SF and San Jose? I get that it's mountainous, but it seems like at $2,000,000 for a tiny parcel of land someone could figure out how to build on it
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it kinda looks like a national forest or something when you drive along 280
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it kinda looks like a national forest or something when you drive along 280
Do you mean off to the side of I-280? It's government protected nature park reserves at the northern end, and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest.
One of the perks of living in Silicon Valley; you can get out of the office and go hiking or biking in nature
One of the perks of living in Silicon Valley; you can get out of the office and go hiking or biking in nature
Take Skyline early one morning and grab breakfast at Alice's. Whole lot of people with loads of money don't want to give that up.
Bottom graph shows 45% in defence/aerospace plus the additional sectors that supported it.
https://lao.ca.gov/1995/010195_calguide/cgep1.html
Edit:not in SV, but the real estate prices probably felt it
https://lao.ca.gov/1995/010195_calguide/cgep1.html
Edit:not in SV, but the real estate prices probably felt it
They’re related, but different things.
Interest rate changes could (will) reduce demand because people can’t “afford” what they used to be able to.
Mass layoffs can lead to people being forced to sell because they can no longer afford payments, or have to move. Edit: and increase supply. Somehow I missed saying this explicitly.
These two things together could be particularly bad for the local area.
Interest rate changes could (will) reduce demand because people can’t “afford” what they used to be able to.
Mass layoffs can lead to people being forced to sell because they can no longer afford payments, or have to move. Edit: and increase supply. Somehow I missed saying this explicitly.
These two things together could be particularly bad for the local area.
Besides the layoffs directly, the stock prices going down could cause people to get into trouble. Facebook had a program where you could get a mortgage that took into account your RSU income. Now that the stock is down 75% from a year ago, I would guess some people could have trouble paying their mortgage.
Admittedly biased Bay area resident myself, but the fundamentals of the housing markets remain from my perspective: this part of the country has the best climate and natural beauty. Over the longer term, I'm not too worried about housing prices but these next couple of years could be brutal. I'd be curious to hear alternate contenders for the climate, landscape claims of mine if anyone's game.
Climate doesn't matter much when people can't afford a mortgage payment on a tiny house that costs several million dollars
There are a lot of reasons the Bay Area is desirable--especially if you're someone who appreciates outdoor activities and natural beauty. But most people also need jobs and at least somewhat affordable housing. If snowbelt or desert cities do a better job of providing those, climate and natural beauty only go so far for a lot of people--especially if they don't otherwise have strong connections to the area.
The other thing has changed is interest rates. Fundamentals @ 7% mortgages really aren't great either.
just curious, are most buildings built for the big one? or is it more let the quake shake down the weak mentality
But that’s not what drove the prices - housing prices were basically the cost of accessing the labor market.
7.7 million people live in the Bay Area. Your 40% estimate is off by several orders of magnitude.
[deleted]
True, but balance that with people coming back to the office. I'd think AirBnBs in Tahoe are definitely in trouble!
Are you saying about 10 000 are 40% of the workforce of SF/SV? So workforce in SF/SV is 25 000?
I think they are saying 40% of those laid off are in SF/SV.
Ah yeah that makes sense!
Not of the total workforce, but "the workforce that earns enough to be able to afford thousands of dollars a month in rent alone". If enough "big tech" people get laid off and are forced to move away because they can't make rent, eventually rental markets should cool down first, and secondary the ownership markets.
it would be interesting to see how many of those layoffs target remote people (all those places, not just twitter). not sure where to find this data. Clearly, for twitter at least "remote work forever" turned out to be a trap. Anecdotally from my linkedin feed many layoffs were remote. Again, I don't know where to find real numbers on this, and I don't make any claims or judgements, just observing.
It’s going to take time for this to materialize. Presumably laid off engineers have access to significant reserves, many of them will be able to ride out a short term period of unemployment. Now, if this turns into a torrent of layoffs across the Bay Area, then those engineers will be looking at long term unemployment, at which point we’re going to see short sales, foreclosures, etc.
What does the 40% number have to do with anything? A company can lay off 100% of its workforce but it won't affect the local Bay Area market unless it makes up a significant number of its ~8 million population. A few hundred or even a few thousand people aren't going to move the needle.
[deleted]
[deleted]
One can only hope, but Bay Area housing survived the 2008 bubble and whatever is happening now is peanuts compared to that so far.
Tech wasn’t hit very hard in 08, nor was it nearly as large a part of the economy.
CA housing was hit hard though. Yes. LA was one of the worst hit
CA housing was hit hard though. Yes. LA was one of the worst hit
Yeah but prices have dramatically increased since 2008, I want to say 2-4x or more based on my anecdotal data.
[deleted]
It’s not like the laid off people will run out of the area the next day en-masse. All have some kind of ties there.
And there’s plenty of other companies ready to scoop up the talent. Most these laid off employees will have job offers within a month.
> And there’s plenty of other companies ready to scoop up the talent
1) Tech job openings have fallen by ~50% since a year ago
2) Total comp packages are materially lower, creating a strain on people's ability to pay for their housing
1) Tech job openings have fallen by ~50% since a year ago
2) Total comp packages are materially lower, creating a strain on people's ability to pay for their housing
I think this is a little different from the fake recession talk in 2020, where HR and thrifty managers tried to scare people into accepting less money
There are still great jobs out there, but you can't just bang out a day of Leetcode and collect a batch of $600k offers at the moment
There are still great jobs out there, but you can't just bang out a day of Leetcode and collect a batch of $600k offers at the moment
Plenty of other companies can't pay half a million dollars to center a div either. Lots of people will lose visa status, homes, cars etc.
Ahh...the great billionaire collusion WFH reset.
the least they could do to end WFH is monitor and manage indoor air quality. 500ppm CO2 OR 222nm UVC so it's at least safer to go back in the office. right now it's a plumes of covid indoor and it's just matter of when for repeat infections; who'd want that.
They did during the last few tech bursts. Why do you think this time will be different?
[deleted]
Good!! Maybe regular people will be able to live there again.
Wouldn’t lower demand for housing be a good thing?
This is a good thing, overall, in the same way that the dotcom crash was a good thing to clear the field of all the frauds.
I have the feeling that a few of those large companies are in need of a wake-up call.
I have the feeling that a few of those large companies are in need of a wake-up call.
It's a good thing in the same way that a wildfire is a good thing. Great for the long term health for the forest, terrible for all the animals, people, property that happened to be in the way.
The tech industry is going to take a while to recover from the current economic shocks, and everyone – whether you work for the affected companies or not – will have to face some pain in the short term.
The tech industry is going to take a while to recover from the current economic shocks, and everyone – whether you work for the affected companies or not – will have to face some pain in the short term.
Interesting you use that analogy, because to continue it -- if you don't occasionally have smaller wildfires, you end up having ones that end up terrible for the health of the forest too.
Not sure what conclusion to draw from that.
Not sure what conclusion to draw from that.
In a "healthy/non growth" economy (perhaps) you'd have firings regularly, instead of keeping the "dead wood" around until the "big fire".
Arguably it's better for the employee (assuming they actually underperform) because then they can recognize "this is me, I need to aim lower or upgrade my skills, etc" instead of "I was one of thousands laid off, I'm fine, it was the company".
Arguably it's better for the employee (assuming they actually underperform) because then they can recognize "this is me, I need to aim lower or upgrade my skills, etc" instead of "I was one of thousands laid off, I'm fine, it was the company".
One can also, I don’t know, institute proper forest/infrastructure management and avoid runaway fires like that
When I lived in Africa, they used to have controlled grassland fires, every year. I remember driving past one of these, and my mother explained the concept to me.
On Long Island (where I live), we have the Pine Barrens. These are areas of scrub and pitch pine trees, in a sandy soil. They require occasional fires, in order to reproduce (opens the cones, and fertilizes the soil).
Back in the early 1990s, we had a pretty major wildfire, because they had not been doing controlled burns. I think New Jersey suffered something similar, around the same time.
Since then, I hear they do controlled burns.
I have seen no "controlled burns" of the bloat that infests the tech industry, so this is likely to be a fairly significant wildfire.
On Long Island (where I live), we have the Pine Barrens. These are areas of scrub and pitch pine trees, in a sandy soil. They require occasional fires, in order to reproduce (opens the cones, and fertilizes the soil).
Back in the early 1990s, we had a pretty major wildfire, because they had not been doing controlled burns. I think New Jersey suffered something similar, around the same time.
Since then, I hear they do controlled burns.
I have seen no "controlled burns" of the bloat that infests the tech industry, so this is likely to be a fairly significant wildfire.
In silicon valley we dont do those, we just let it rip
Largely mirroring CA's apparent fire management policy as well.
> The tech industry is going to take a while to recover from the current economic shocks
How did you come to this conclusion? The doubling of headcount in 2020 and 2021 in a year didn’t signal that this can turn on a dime in either direction?
How did you come to this conclusion? The doubling of headcount in 2020 and 2021 in a year didn’t signal that this can turn on a dime in either direction?
Exactly. All those extreme company valuations, could not go on forever and a crash had to happen. [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993919
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993919
Yup
The delusional amount of overhiring at these companies was really something. Guess it was too ingrained in their DNA.
The delusional amount of overhiring at these companies was really something. Guess it was too ingrained in their DNA.
It's nice and all to say "yay yay market correction".
It's a whole other thing to be cheering for people losing their jobs.
Remember, we have one of the weakest social nets in the world. And our medical is nigh exclusively tied to our jobs.
But people are losing their jobs en masse (and the C-levels get golden parachutes). Um, yay?
It's a whole other thing to be cheering for people losing their jobs.
Remember, we have one of the weakest social nets in the world. And our medical is nigh exclusively tied to our jobs.
But people are losing their jobs en masse (and the C-levels get golden parachutes). Um, yay?
I'm not cheering by any means. But the average individual salary at Twitter is ~39% higher than the average household income in the U.S.; the average salary of the folks HN relates to -- the tech team, the ally team, etc. -- is considerably higher.
Totally agree our social safety nets aren't the strongest. But precisely because of that, people -- particularly higher earners -- have a responsibility to build their own padding for the inevitable short, sharp shocks to their livelihood.
EDIT: I reflexively pulled Twitter numbers, but a quick glance shows the average FB salary is higher.
Totally agree our social safety nets aren't the strongest. But precisely because of that, people -- particularly higher earners -- have a responsibility to build their own padding for the inevitable short, sharp shocks to their livelihood.
EDIT: I reflexively pulled Twitter numbers, but a quick glance shows the average FB salary is higher.
One thing to consider: how much of that salary is going to the high cost of living in the Bay Area? The numbers are definitely higher but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the percentages of people who are n months away from needing to find another place to live – especially if that shock turns out to be sharper than it is short.
I lived in San Diego in the mid-90s. One thing I remembered was that the very first job I had doing QA for a COBOL vendor at $15/hour had not just one but multiple applicants with doctorate degrees apply. That was fallout from the Cold War: they’d all worked for big defense contractors on projects which were scaled back, suddenly going from comfortably above average income to nothing. One of the things a bunch of people found out abruptly was how bad it can be to have a lot of your net worth tied up in housing: the market slowed dramatically (nobody needed houses near those employers, many people were waiting to see how the market went, etc.) for everyone at the same time, so a house you could easily have sold before would be on the market for a year.
Things are better now in some key ways (remote work, portable skills, etc.) but I still would be surprised if a bunch of people aren’t getting a rough reminder about how badly correlated failures can suck, especially for the ones not making experienced software engineer salaries.
I lived in San Diego in the mid-90s. One thing I remembered was that the very first job I had doing QA for a COBOL vendor at $15/hour had not just one but multiple applicants with doctorate degrees apply. That was fallout from the Cold War: they’d all worked for big defense contractors on projects which were scaled back, suddenly going from comfortably above average income to nothing. One of the things a bunch of people found out abruptly was how bad it can be to have a lot of your net worth tied up in housing: the market slowed dramatically (nobody needed houses near those employers, many people were waiting to see how the market went, etc.) for everyone at the same time, so a house you could easily have sold before would be on the market for a year.
Things are better now in some key ways (remote work, portable skills, etc.) but I still would be surprised if a bunch of people aren’t getting a rough reminder about how badly correlated failures can suck, especially for the ones not making experienced software engineer salaries.
Unemployment rate is pretty much the lowest it’s been in history.
God forbid we take responsibility for the massive bubble we’ve created through fiscal and monetary excess and actually address inflation
These people will be reabsorbed elsewhere, but it will certainly be a sad world when 21 year olds can’t make 300k out of college with 0 experience.
God forbid we take responsibility for the massive bubble we’ve created through fiscal and monetary excess and actually address inflation
These people will be reabsorbed elsewhere, but it will certainly be a sad world when 21 year olds can’t make 300k out of college with 0 experience.
> Unemployment rate is currently close to the lowest it’s been in history.
Yes, it is. But declines follow peaks.
> People who lose their jobs will be reabsorbed elsewhere
...or they won’t, and very soon the unemployment rate will be farther than it is today from the lowest it has been in history.
Yes, it is. But declines follow peaks.
> People who lose their jobs will be reabsorbed elsewhere
...or they won’t, and very soon the unemployment rate will be farther than it is today from the lowest it has been in history.
Unemployment rate is a measure of slack in the labor market, nothing more. It says nothing about an individual’s experience.
5% unemployment means there’s a rotating set of job seekers that comprise 5% of the labor force.
It absolutely does not mean that 5% of the labor force is perpetually jobless and unemployable.
I hope those lamenting these layoffs were also against the extreme fiscal excess which made them necessary in the end. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions
5% unemployment means there’s a rotating set of job seekers that comprise 5% of the labor force.
It absolutely does not mean that 5% of the labor force is perpetually jobless and unemployable.
I hope those lamenting these layoffs were also against the extreme fiscal excess which made them necessary in the end. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions
> Unemployment rate is a measure of slack in the labor market, nothing more. It says nothing about an individual’s experience.
Unemployment rate is simply the ratio of two patterns of individual experience (not employed and actively looking vs that plus currently employed), published after the fact.
> 5% unemployment means there’s a rotating set of job seekers that comprise 5% of the labor force.
5% unemployment means that (at the time covered by the report) for every 100 people either not employed and actively looking for work or working, 5 fell into the former category.
It absolutely doesn’t tell you how much of that group is “rotating”.
Unemployment rate is simply the ratio of two patterns of individual experience (not employed and actively looking vs that plus currently employed), published after the fact.
> 5% unemployment means there’s a rotating set of job seekers that comprise 5% of the labor force.
5% unemployment means that (at the time covered by the report) for every 100 people either not employed and actively looking for work or working, 5 fell into the former category.
It absolutely doesn’t tell you how much of that group is “rotating”.
The 5% rotates by definition if anybody is hired or fired, as will always be the case.
5% unemployment is never going to represent 5% of the workforce being perpetually unemployed, as many sob stories try to implicitly portray it as.
If an individual is perpetually unemployable, then it doesn’t matter if unemployment is 5% or 1%, they aren’t getting hired anyway
5% unemployment is never going to represent 5% of the workforce being perpetually unemployed, as many sob stories try to implicitly portray it as.
If an individual is perpetually unemployable, then it doesn’t matter if unemployment is 5% or 1%, they aren’t getting hired anyway
> The 5% rotates by definition if anybody is hired or fired, as will always be the case.
No, it doesn’t rotate “by definition”, and the rate isn’t a constant, it is a point-in-time estimate.
If there is both hiring and firing going on that isn’t at the edges of the work force some portion of the 5% is transitorily unemployed, but that could be a very large or very small portion, or anything in between.
No, it doesn’t rotate “by definition”, and the rate isn’t a constant, it is a point-in-time estimate.
If there is both hiring and firing going on that isn’t at the edges of the work force some portion of the 5% is transitorily unemployed, but that could be a very large or very small portion, or anything in between.
[deleted]
Ah, Trump will be back in office slashing rates in 2025, shouldn't be too hard to scrape by til then
> ... slashing rates in 2025, shouldn't be too hard to scrape by til then
If rates aren’t being slashed long before then, then either:
(1) the brief burst of layoffs were an aberration and the job market will have otherwise stayed strong, so scraping by isn’t an issue.
(2) despite a weakening job market, inflation has been so persistent that fighting it remains a higher Fed priority than stimulus, and a politically motivated loosening of monetary policy would be a recipe for slingshotting into hyperinflation.
If rates aren’t being slashed long before then, then either:
(1) the brief burst of layoffs were an aberration and the job market will have otherwise stayed strong, so scraping by isn’t an issue.
(2) despite a weakening job market, inflation has been so persistent that fighting it remains a higher Fed priority than stimulus, and a politically motivated loosening of monetary policy would be a recipe for slingshotting into hyperinflation.
The president doesn’t control interest rates. Trump tried bullying the Fed into lowering rates and didn’t work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
Just because the general country-wide unemployment is a low number, does not mean with any sort of guarantee that an individual will be able to transition in a decent amount of time as not to unduly impact their life.
And given what the oligopoly of banks... err, the FED has been saying, 'they are hitting the brakes of inflation by raising interest rates significantly' - further exasperating the layoffs and slowing/reversing hiring at other firms.
Just because the general country-wide unemployment is a low number, does not mean with any sort of guarantee that an individual will be able to transition in a decent amount of time as not to unduly impact their life.
And given what the oligopoly of banks... err, the FED has been saying, 'they are hitting the brakes of inflation by raising interest rates significantly' - further exasperating the layoffs and slowing/reversing hiring at other firms.
There will always be those that suffer
Targeting them more precisely with aid is the way to solve that, not helicopter money into massive bubble and inflation.
In the end who got hurt the most by the very money handed to them?
Targeting them more precisely with aid is the way to solve that, not helicopter money into massive bubble and inflation.
In the end who got hurt the most by the very money handed to them?
> There will always be those that suffer
With that attitude, there will be.
But there doesn't have to be.
> Targeting them more precisely with aid is the way to solve that, not helicopter money into massive bubble and inflation.
Not aid. Money. Straight up cold hard cash. Any thing else instead, like SNAP, housing vouchers, etc treats them like they have no agency. Yet with corporate handouts, we do no such thing. Look no further than the PPP debacle.
With that attitude, there will be.
But there doesn't have to be.
> Targeting them more precisely with aid is the way to solve that, not helicopter money into massive bubble and inflation.
Not aid. Money. Straight up cold hard cash. Any thing else instead, like SNAP, housing vouchers, etc treats them like they have no agency. Yet with corporate handouts, we do no such thing. Look no further than the PPP debacle.
We did hand everybody money, which is why the economy is about to crash as a result of the inflation it propagated.
Sorry, you advocate economic collapse, not anything realistic or sustainable.
Wishful thinkers have inflicted a vast amount of deaths throughout history due to economic mismanagement. Famine, hyperinflation etc
Sorry, you advocate economic collapse, not anything realistic or sustainable.
Wishful thinkers have inflicted a vast amount of deaths throughout history due to economic mismanagement. Famine, hyperinflation etc
Word tip: exacerbating not exasperating.
Do you think that the world will improve if 21-year-old college graduates make less money?
Yes, because compensation will more closely match contributions, and I prefer a just world
Does this logic extend to company shareholders, board members, and CEOs too?
What do you think’s happened to shareholders who held all these tech stocks that are down 90%?
They’ve lost 90% of their money, by definition
They’ve lost 90% of their money, by definition
I'm not sure this is an answer to my question.
Where is the disconnect?
If an investor does poor due diligence and doesn’t put the work in to determine a reasonable fair valuation for a company, and then loses their entire investment, that is just.
If board members give bad advice and the stock falls, they incur losses.
These are just outcomes.
Most people would agree that attending a 6 week bootcamp shouldn’t entitle somebody to a 200-300k job. And it won’t in the near future.
You’ll have to do a lot more to achieve the same comp going forward, just like every other industry. There’s nothing special about tech, it was just a nascent industry in boom times. No longer
If an investor does poor due diligence and doesn’t put the work in to determine a reasonable fair valuation for a company, and then loses their entire investment, that is just.
If board members give bad advice and the stock falls, they incur losses.
These are just outcomes.
Most people would agree that attending a 6 week bootcamp shouldn’t entitle somebody to a 200-300k job. And it won’t in the near future.
You’ll have to do a lot more to achieve the same comp going forward, just like every other industry. There’s nothing special about tech, it was just a nascent industry in boom times. No longer
"Most people would agree that attending a 6 week bootcamp shouldn’t entitle somebody to a 200-300k job. And it won’t in the near future."
People agree with that because it's true, developers landing those kinds of jobs are people coming out of strong universities (Stanford, Berkeley, etc), already have connections, or are senior level positions.
Nobody comes out of a code camp having just learned react and lands a 250 K position. Not sure where you got that information from but that's a serious outlier.
People agree with that because it's true, developers landing those kinds of jobs are people coming out of strong universities (Stanford, Berkeley, etc), already have connections, or are senior level positions.
Nobody comes out of a code camp having just learned react and lands a 250 K position. Not sure where you got that information from but that's a serious outlier.
FAANGs and unicorn startups hire the people who pass their interviews, which has nothing to do with what school they went to. They hire people straight out of bootcamps, and schools of all tiers.
And many with little skills could grind leetcode and make 200k with no past experience. I became wealthy through egregious tech pay, I’ve seen it all firsthand.
Were you asleep at the wheel through the whole Covid bubble?
And many with little skills could grind leetcode and make 200k with no past experience. I became wealthy through egregious tech pay, I’ve seen it all firsthand.
Were you asleep at the wheel through the whole Covid bubble?
I don't think you have answered it yet, do you believe that shareholders, CEOs, board members, etc. are paid justly for the work they produce?
That wasn’t the initial question.
Shareholders clearly get paid commensurately with their ability to make wise investment choices. There’s nothing more equitable than that
What other outcome could or should there possibly even be?
Shareholders clearly get paid commensurately with their ability to make wise investment choices. There’s nothing more equitable than that
What other outcome could or should there possibly even be?
That would be normally a sensible sentiment, and a rare empathic one, on hyperindividualist hypercapitalist Hacker News.
But here we're talking about people who made at least 300k a year, possibly up to a million. Those who stayed for few years likely never have to look for another job even again. The ones who didn't might still take few years sabbatical.
But here we're talking about people who made at least 300k a year, possibly up to a million. Those who stayed for few years likely never have to look for another job even again. The ones who didn't might still take few years sabbatical.
> But here we're talking about people who made at least 300k a year, possibly up to a million. Those who stayed for few years likely never have to look for another job even again. The ones who didn't might still take few years sabbatical.
Are you suggesting that working "a few years" earning $300k in a high cost-of-living area means you likely saved enough money to never need to work again? Or are you suggesting that someone with the skills/experience working in a position that did pay that much for a few years will find it trivial to find another job?
Are you suggesting that working "a few years" earning $300k in a high cost-of-living area means you likely saved enough money to never need to work again? Or are you suggesting that someone with the skills/experience working in a position that did pay that much for a few years will find it trivial to find another job?
I am suggesting the former. Safe withdrawal rate from investments is usually considered 4 %, so each 100k invested makes you 4k a year. A few years at FAANG, assuming you don't spend it all, will give you idle rich lifestyle before thirty.
I was there during the dot-com bubble.
Everything that looked like bullshit turned out to be bullshit.
And I've seen a lot of delusional bullshit during the last few years, the wort of those coming from Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
Everything that looked like bullshit turned out to be bullshit.
And I've seen a lot of delusional bullshit during the last few years, the wort of those coming from Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
The Metaverse doesn't seem delusional to me, it just seems like a massive gamble. I can easily envision a future where they've cornered the market on VR. Where to play the latest Call of Duty you need to do it through the Metaverse Portal, and you have access to NFT skins that you either bought or unlocked as achievement from other games.
I hope that future doesn't happen, or that if it does its through a decentralized protocol and not owned by Meta. But if the Metaverse implodes I'd still consider it a failed gamble than delusional bullshit.
I can't defend Musk the same way.
I hope that future doesn't happen, or that if it does its through a decentralized protocol and not owned by Meta. But if the Metaverse implodes I'd still consider it a failed gamble than delusional bullshit.
I can't defend Musk the same way.
What is looking delusional is the way Meta/Zuck is handling it.
They do not have to raise money to build the tech, so they don't even have to advertise anything until they have something really worthy to show and sell.
So why are they showing something that is clearly not ready?
Either they think that discourse can translate into reality if enough people believe in it (magical thinking), or they think they already have a product. In both case this is delusional.
They do not have to raise money to build the tech, so they don't even have to advertise anything until they have something really worthy to show and sell.
So why are they showing something that is clearly not ready?
Either they think that discourse can translate into reality if enough people believe in it (magical thinking), or they think they already have a product. In both case this is delusional.
My guess is they know that someone else has something vastly superior in the works, and Zuck is trying to muddy the waters and make Facebook synonymous with VR before they can come in and take over. Then Facebook will be able to take a strong #2 position
Elon Musk advertised as a feature that he would cut Twitter staff to bring the revenue per employee in line with industry standards.
But I’m curious - What ideas of Elon do you find to be delusional bullshit?
But I’m curious - What ideas of Elon do you find to be delusional bullshit?
Most of his AI claims are, so far, backed by nothing.
The demos are underwhelming, to say the least.
The rockets and car factories are impressive.
But the tunnels, the robotaxi, the hyperloop, the solar roofs... So far, a lot of over-hyped promises that are looking more and more like vaporware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0PHv3E8jpY
The rockets and car factories are impressive.
But the tunnels, the robotaxi, the hyperloop, the solar roofs... So far, a lot of over-hyped promises that are looking more and more like vaporware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0PHv3E8jpY
I would say that "living on Mars" could be classified as delusional.
It was, but once Starship becomes operational, the financial game changes by many orders of magnitude - to a point where a single billionaire with no fucks to give can actually book themselves a ride to Mars.
One may hate on Musk for a number of very good reasons, but it cannot be denied him, Shotwell and the rest of the SpaceX team have thoroughly kicked the established space industry mooches into their asses.
One may hate on Musk for a number of very good reasons, but it cannot be denied him, Shotwell and the rest of the SpaceX team have thoroughly kicked the established space industry mooches into their asses.
There's a huge chasm between "disrupting an already inefficient space industry" and "living on Mars".
We barely have the capability of living long term on Antarctica, and it has plentiful water, oxygen, gravity, a magnetic field, and doesn't have lethal radiation. Until I see a 100K population colony on Antarctica, I'll be unconvinced that we even have a prayer of building a 1K population colony on Mars.
We barely have the capability of living long term on Antarctica, and it has plentiful water, oxygen, gravity, a magnetic field, and doesn't have lethal radiation. Until I see a 100K population colony on Antarctica, I'll be unconvinced that we even have a prayer of building a 1K population colony on Mars.
We could easily build a 100k colony in Antarctica or out in the ocean right now (or in the Australian Outback or Canadian north or any other inhospitable boring hellscape)
I'll admit that I'm not sure what the point of a mars colony is either, except for science and to act as a forward space outpost.. maybe it would be useful for industrial purposes? I guess you wouldn't have to worry about utterly destroying the environment.
If it were mostly self sufficient it could act as a seed to repair earth society in the event of a catastrophic asteroid strike or nuclear war, I guess
I'll admit that I'm not sure what the point of a mars colony is either, except for science and to act as a forward space outpost.. maybe it would be useful for industrial purposes? I guess you wouldn't have to worry about utterly destroying the environment.
If it were mostly self sufficient it could act as a seed to repair earth society in the event of a catastrophic asteroid strike or nuclear war, I guess
Meh. No one wants to live on the poles, not even for bragging rights, other than a few scientists. Mars however? There's a shitload of people who'd volunteer to go there simply for their entry in the history books.
> billionaire with no fucks to give can actually book themselves a ride to Mars
What is a billionaire gonna do once they get to Mars?
What is a billionaire gonna do once they get to Mars?
"What is a billionaire gonna do once they get to Mars?"
Undergo profound physical atrophy leading to organ dysfunction and eventually cancer ...
... since Mars gravity is something like 1/3 that of Earth.
Undergo profound physical atrophy leading to organ dysfunction and eventually cancer ...
... since Mars gravity is something like 1/3 that of Earth.
Elon Musk has unfortunately a very long track record of over-promising and under-delivering.
Anything he say should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
I don't think he is a complete fraud, but I would not bet my shirt on his Mark colonization project.
Anything he say should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
I don't think he is a complete fraud, but I would not bet my shirt on his Mark colonization project.
saying "self driving cars are 2 years away" for the last 5+ years sticks out to me
I don't know enough about the science to have a strong opinion, but I've heard a lot of people who have been critical of hyper loop, a very expensive tunnel filled with Tesla cars in Vegas that has much less efficiency than a subway from 50+ years ago, and saying that full self driving would be easy and finished years ago (he's since said full self driving is actually much more difficult than he initially thought).
Maybe no visionary is going to get everything right. But there do seem to be some pretty major areas that have received critical feedback from people who seem to understand those domains.
Maybe no visionary is going to get everything right. But there do seem to be some pretty major areas that have received critical feedback from people who seem to understand those domains.
"Full Self Driving"
"Shoot first, ask questions later"[0] when cutting staff seems like a delusional idea to me.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33496808
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33496808
Not the OP but the hyperloop thing is, imho, total bullshit. Not such a big thing though because he hasn't poured billions and billions of dollars into it as Zuckerberg has done with the VR stuff.
On the other hand Tesla has been a huge thing. I'm a big anti-EVs guy because I'm, at heart, a petrolhead, and at the beginning I was of course very skeptic of him managing to pull it off. But that opinion of mine changed completely the moment when I realised that a Tesla vehicle is basically a piece of software running/controlling a battery that happens to have 4 wheels attached, and that the Tesla engineers have managed to make good on that.
The rocket stuff is also quite cool.
On the other hand Tesla has been a huge thing. I'm a big anti-EVs guy because I'm, at heart, a petrolhead, and at the beginning I was of course very skeptic of him managing to pull it off. But that opinion of mine changed completely the moment when I realised that a Tesla vehicle is basically a piece of software running/controlling a battery that happens to have 4 wheels attached, and that the Tesla engineers have managed to make good on that.
The rocket stuff is also quite cool.
i wish tesla would make hvac for houses to be honest, the amount of thought into managing heat in a tesla is something special; or maybe it's AI
Is this a Tech/Social Media bust in the making with Twitter's latest woes as well? Or is the more a sign of many companies taking an opportunity to pull back on ad/marketing spending? Collectively that would impact social media and search platforms the most since that is their only real revenue source.
Adtech here, spending is increasing in all things. However premium content like Hulu etc are taking up more budget than "web apps" of late because the data shows its more effective
> Adtech here, spending is increasing in all things.
This is misleading.
Increasing? Yes.
Increasing relative to view a couple months ago? No. [0]
META's valuation has gotten hammered recently due to reduced ad forecasts on top of AAPL locking down iPhone privacy.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/less-growth-seen-for-2023-u-s-a...
This is misleading.
Increasing? Yes.
Increasing relative to view a couple months ago? No. [0]
META's valuation has gotten hammered recently due to reduced ad forecasts on top of AAPL locking down iPhone privacy.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/less-growth-seen-for-2023-u-s-a...
On top of AAPL growing their advertising business at the expense of their competitors is more accurate.
[deleted]
The stock market downturn has hit a lot of tech companies hard, and since that affects their ability to pay cheaply (in stock) and/or run at a loss made up by investors, they're cutting staff bills.
How do large companies typically decide who gets laid off? Do they set a target, then pass it down proportionately throughout the org tree? Do they often chop specific areas entirely and leave others unaffected? A mix of both? Something else?
I have seen organization-level layoffs and more targeted layoffs.
In the (only) organization level layoff I saw, someone stuck a pin in an org chart at a pretty high level. Everybody (and I mean everybody) in the tree underneath that point lost their job. Longtime employees at that company were in total shock that day. This was a layoff of a couple thousand employees.
I also saw a salary-based layoff happen. In that one, a number of software engineers in a division making over $X were let go in a cost-saving maneuver. Macroeconomic conditions continued to decline and a few months later, most early tenure (say 3-4 years or less) were basically let go.
I was new hire at the org-level layoff place I mentioned. New hires were exempted from the "resource action." Over the next 6 years that I was there, there were periodic layoffs but these were mostly targeted at folks judged as not doing particularly well or in positions that simply weren't needed anymore.
In the (only) organization level layoff I saw, someone stuck a pin in an org chart at a pretty high level. Everybody (and I mean everybody) in the tree underneath that point lost their job. Longtime employees at that company were in total shock that day. This was a layoff of a couple thousand employees.
I also saw a salary-based layoff happen. In that one, a number of software engineers in a division making over $X were let go in a cost-saving maneuver. Macroeconomic conditions continued to decline and a few months later, most early tenure (say 3-4 years or less) were basically let go.
I was new hire at the org-level layoff place I mentioned. New hires were exempted from the "resource action." Over the next 6 years that I was there, there were periodic layoffs but these were mostly targeted at folks judged as not doing particularly well or in positions that simply weren't needed anymore.
Depends on the size of org impacted within the large companies, but typically directors and up are involved. (unless they're the one being cut)
Usually they retain the top performing employees. If the entire org is shelved, such employees are moved to another org.
there was blog post on teamblind that laid out this process. Have blind on banned list on my computer but you should be able to find it.
As we say in Spanish "as I have limited time left in the Convent, I will shit inside". I am very surprised to see all these polite colleagues behaving like angels while being treated like office clips. Good luck to all of us.
Maybe if all these large tech companies get rid of the fat, we will get less cosmetic "updates"... these engineers don't even know what to do with their time.
Their share price is 73% down since the start of the year, certainly at some point their CEO and the person taking the actual decisions should take responsibility for it all, no?
No, employees take responsibility when the stock is down. Decision makers only take responsibility when it's up. :D
I’ve seen this posted a lot, and I’m not really sure I understand what the point is. Yes, Zuck has an unusual amount of power as CEO. In another company, the CEO might be fired and the new CEO would come in and do the mass layoffs and course correction. But the only difference is in that one person’s job security. It makes no difference to the rank and file: the company over hired and there’s only one remedy for that, irrespective of CEO accountability.
When you say the CEO should take responsibility for it all, what exactly do you mean?
When you say the CEO should take responsibility for it all, what exactly do you mean?
> When you say the CEO should take responsibility for it all, what exactly do you mean?
Either stepping aside or killing the VR thing, which is haemorrhaging money and which is very negatively affecting the share price. The article itself has a quote by some Meta investors asking just that, i.e. for the VR project to be killed.
Either stepping aside or killing the VR thing, which is haemorrhaging money and which is very negatively affecting the share price. The article itself has a quote by some Meta investors asking just that, i.e. for the VR project to be killed.
Why would he step aside or kill his dream? He has unlimited money and can't be fired. He's completely unaccountable to anyone. You think he cares about the investors? My understanding is that facebook added some refershers when their stock plummeted, expect them to do so again after the layoffs.
Yeah fair and I think most other companies this would happen.
But the layoffs would still happen in all scenarios.
But the layoffs would still happen in all scenarios.
Because Zuckerberg has controlling shares, it is hard to force him out. I would expect bitter shareholders to sue him for breaching fiduciary duty or similar, but IANAL.
Responsibility for what?
It's easy to say that in hindsight, hiring 40K people in 3 years was not a good move. Maybe 3 years ago it was the best move. Maybe Facebook would have been down 90% if they didn't.
And I say that as someone that thinks the shift to the metaverse is a complete idiocy.
It's easy to say that in hindsight, hiring 40K people in 3 years was not a good move. Maybe 3 years ago it was the best move. Maybe Facebook would have been down 90% if they didn't.
And I say that as someone that thinks the shift to the metaverse is a complete idiocy.
By the same logic, the CEOs of Shopify, Spotify and Netflix should take responsibility as well. Maybe there is something more systemic going on.
What does "taking responsibility" look like? A meaningless public post "I take responsibility"?
Stepping aside or closing/killing-off the project that is haemorrhaging money and is bringing down the share valuation.
Good luck taking action against the person with all the voting shares.
If there's a severance payment, I wouldn't mind that, as I was planning on leaving the week after next.
So I guess it really has begun...
Earnings were terrible and all techs are getting punished.
Earnings were terrible and all techs are getting punished.
Reminder that earlier this year the Fed implored corporate leaders to initiate hiring freezes and layoffs in order to lower inflation that they blamed on "high wages", and big tech companies were some of the first to line up to gleefully fall on that sword.
Man, if this is the end of social media, then it can’t come too soon.
+1
Social media has been a net minus for society. That doesn't mean "no benefits" but rather "benefits far outweighed by costs."
As for Google: some DC cynic once said "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." So has their PR team denied it yet?
Social media has been a net minus for society. That doesn't mean "no benefits" but rather "benefits far outweighed by costs."
As for Google: some DC cynic once said "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." So has their PR team denied it yet?
Would you mind disambiguating DC, best I got is data-center, which doesn't make a bunch of sense. I do like that quote though.
District of Columbia
thank you and that should have been obvious. perhaps i need to get out of the industry more.
No problem. I thought of adding periods, so it would be "D.C." and probably should have.
Washington D.C.
Social media isn't inherently bad, if you can learn how to self-curate.
I've made pen pal friends on international trips who I stay in contact with on Instagram and Twitter because it doesn't make sense to exchange phone numbers. I use lists and muted words/phrases on Twitter to only see tweets from people I care about reading, on topics I mostly am fine with.
I guess for people who still browse Facebook and Twitter like they did 15 years ago, then social media should get buried. But there are some pretty effective ways to curb its toxicity and reap benefit from it these days.
I've made pen pal friends on international trips who I stay in contact with on Instagram and Twitter because it doesn't make sense to exchange phone numbers. I use lists and muted words/phrases on Twitter to only see tweets from people I care about reading, on topics I mostly am fine with.
I guess for people who still browse Facebook and Twitter like they did 15 years ago, then social media should get buried. But there are some pretty effective ways to curb its toxicity and reap benefit from it these days.
"Junk food isn't inherently bad, if you can learn to self-discipline." This ignores the fact that it's 100% engineered to be as addictive as possible, just like social media.
You may have found a way to use social media that works for you, but the net effect on society is still negative.
You may have found a way to use social media that works for you, but the net effect on society is still negative.
"Social media isn't inherently bad, if people across the world can learn how to self-curate." Is equivalent to "Social media is bad" IMO.
There are always going to be "enough" people who can't self-curate that social media will be harmful.
There are always going to be "enough" people who can't self-curate that social media will be harmful.
But you could say the same thing about nearly everything.
Sure there are millions upon millions of books. Someone who enjoys reading won't elect to read books they know are a waste of time or something that will be offensive to them.
Same can be said for consuming newspapers (anyone else just skip the front page and go right to a special section you actually care about, like sports or business instead of politics?), TV, movies, video games? Music?
So are all things bad because some people are incapable of deciding for themselves how to consume said things?
Sure there are millions upon millions of books. Someone who enjoys reading won't elect to read books they know are a waste of time or something that will be offensive to them.
Same can be said for consuming newspapers (anyone else just skip the front page and go right to a special section you actually care about, like sports or business instead of politics?), TV, movies, video games? Music?
So are all things bad because some people are incapable of deciding for themselves how to consume said things?
It is self evident that not all products are equally good or equally bad to individuals or society.
You simply cannot compare reading books to taking opium, for instance.
You simply cannot compare reading books to taking opium, for instance.
So then you can make the same argument for social media, which further proves my point. It's not one-sided at all.
I’d argue that you cannot. Social media inherently needs to hold your attention for as long as possible, and will do that through controversy, misleading and false information, and an attempt to manipulate. It’s part and parcel of the product, and extremely harmful to society as a whole.
I think you're misunderstanding the argument altogether, honestly.
The argument isn't whether social media is toxic but whether users can do some work themselves to filter out as much of the toxicity as possible and still benefit from using it.
This thread is really just a circle; things in the right moderation aren't so unhealthy.
The argument isn't whether social media is toxic but whether users can do some work themselves to filter out as much of the toxicity as possible and still benefit from using it.
This thread is really just a circle; things in the right moderation aren't so unhealthy.
"The dose makes the poison" is as true for social media as it is for everything else. I agree that self-curation (and restricting your time) are critical; the problem is that social media companies are incentivized to de-curate and addict you to their product.
Reddit and HN are also social media…
I don't know about that. Is any web site that has user comments social media now? That seems an overly broad definition.
HN isn't particularly social as far as I can see. I don't have a network of friends. It doesn't facilitate personal connections or groups.
HN isn't particularly social as far as I can see. I don't have a network of friends. It doesn't facilitate personal connections or groups.
As a quick check, here's the first definition from a google search of social media:
"websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking."
I was surprised by the "or".
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocial+media&oq=def...
"websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking."
I was surprised by the "or".
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocial+media&oq=def...
Your definition of social networking uses itself. That’s not a great definition…
Social media will not "end", just continue to evolve from one form to another and one platform to another.
If this is the end of FB and Twitter, it can’t come too soon.
Social media has a lifetime value. It will go from one company to the next.
Why are you posting here if you want HN gone?
I don’t consider it to be social media. It’s a tech site I can add comments to. I’m not here to socialise. There are strict policies around discourse. It’s frowned on to speak about politics and can get you banned.
We never called bulletin boards “social media” back in the day. And they weren’t.
We never called bulletin boards “social media” back in the day. And they weren’t.
It's definitely social media by every definition of it.
Not according to Oban and Wildman, who define social media as having the following characteristics:
“To define “social media” for our current purposes, we synthesize definitions presented in the literature and identify the following commonalities among current social media services:
1) Social media services are (currently) Web 2.0 Internet-based applications,
2) User-generated content is the lifeblood of social media,
3) Individuals and groups create user-specific profiles for a site or app designed and maintained by a social media service,
4) Social media services facilitate the development of social networks online by connecting a profile with those of other individuals and/or groups.”
Obar, J.A. and Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745-750. Quello Center Working Paper No. 2647377
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2647377
“To define “social media” for our current purposes, we synthesize definitions presented in the literature and identify the following commonalities among current social media services:
1) Social media services are (currently) Web 2.0 Internet-based applications,
2) User-generated content is the lifeblood of social media,
3) Individuals and groups create user-specific profiles for a site or app designed and maintained by a social media service,
4) Social media services facilitate the development of social networks online by connecting a profile with those of other individuals and/or groups.”
Obar, J.A. and Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745-750. Quello Center Working Paper No. 2647377
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2647377
TikTok next please!
These things tend to correlate. If A is laying off, I can do so as well without taking a too much PR flack and/or singling our firm out as one navigating firm-specific uncertain market conditions.
[deleted]
Why would Elon Musk do this?
But seriously, almost every company reliant on ads has announced layoffs this year. Neither Twitter or Facebook layoffs should be a surprise.
But seriously, almost every company reliant on ads has announced layoffs this year. Neither Twitter or Facebook layoffs should be a surprise.
I wonder if this is directly or indirectly related to what Elon Musk did at Twitter.
Doubt it. Quite a few tech cos have been announcing freezes as well as RIFs.
Most are trimming fat because of market conditions (economic slowdown) Twitter because they were management heavy and they were bought out and needed to trim some excess weight.
Most are trimming fat because of market conditions (economic slowdown) Twitter because they were management heavy and they were bought out and needed to trim some excess weight.
If Musk hadn't made a Twitter offer, where would their stock be today? Probably low enough that big layoffs were inevitable.
It likely has nothing to do with it.
I'd blame this more on overblown headcount combined with the new built-in privacy features on both Apple and Android phones for hitting adtech revenue. But one could have seen that coming a year in advance, when these features were being prepared.
Oh, and for Meta specifically, this outsized bet on the "metaverse".
I'd blame this more on overblown headcount combined with the new built-in privacy features on both Apple and Android phones for hitting adtech revenue. But one could have seen that coming a year in advance, when these features were being prepared.
Oh, and for Meta specifically, this outsized bet on the "metaverse".
Possibly indirectly in the sense most people are going to be consumed with the Twitter debacle and won't really pay much attention to what is going on at Meduh.
Article is paywalled - is there an estimate of how many will be laid off?
journalist's thread: https://twitter.com/JeffHorwitz/status/1589365495702360064
>We aren’t in a position to confirm the exact size of the cuts, but this is likely going to be the biggest round of tech layoffs to date by a margin. Many thousands of people will be getting laid off.
>We aren’t in a position to confirm the exact size of the cuts, but this is likely going to be the biggest round of tech layoffs to date by a margin. Many thousands of people will be getting laid off.
Nothing more specific than "many thousands".
I have it from a trusted friend that a big Google layoff is coming soon as well. Stay safe out there
I have it from a good friend that this is bullshit
they were literally trying to recruit me last week
Meta, Amazon, hell even Twitter have reached out to me and my neighbors recently (my friend has an interview at Twitter next week). I believe even during hiring freezes these companies carry on recruitment because they're slow and can wait for the ideal role to appear in the future even if there's nothing available right now. So basically you'll get an offer without a job.
During freezes there's often exceptions for teams who've lost people, especially for critical roles. i.e. you can't increase count but you can keep it the same.
And?
Recruiters are usually operating on weeks old info. They never find out when the freezes/cuts are coming until the day of, because any changes would tip off employees and lead to rumors/lower morale and productivity.
Recruiters are usually operating on weeks old info. They never find out when the freezes/cuts are coming until the day of, because any changes would tip off employees and lead to rumors/lower morale and productivity.
Recruiters from the big companies doing layoffs as we speak have hit me up, it means nothing.
Not saying that the grandparent comment is confirmed, but they always keep recruiters busy no matter what until they themselves are laid off. AFAIK Google has pretty much paused hiring across all divisions.
Hiring freezes aside, it is possible to be laying off people and hiring.
Laying off your costly senior employees, while replacing them with cheaper entry-level employees, can be a huge cost saving and the loss in quality or performance may be immaterial.
This will of course depend on what the employees were doing and how many experienced/senior people you keep to supervise and mentor the new employees.
Even in "hiring freeze" situations, this can be done by replacing employees with cheaper contractors.
Yes, it sucks, but it's the reality of the market.
Laying off your costly senior employees, while replacing them with cheaper entry-level employees, can be a huge cost saving and the loss in quality or performance may be immaterial.
This will of course depend on what the employees were doing and how many experienced/senior people you keep to supervise and mentor the new employees.
Even in "hiring freeze" situations, this can be done by replacing employees with cheaper contractors.
Yes, it sucks, but it's the reality of the market.
Sorry but sometimes the people hire are the last to know that there is going to be a layoff. Plenty of stories abound about people being hired right into a layoff.
Meta was aggressively recruiting until there was a surprise hiring freeze. It wouldn't surprise me if they were recruiting one week and laying off the next.
you may get an offer but not a job...
I think both can be true at the same time but it is unlikely for the first
Wondering how the displaced engineers will impact the rest of the job market
Just my 2c: I know friends who work at other companies paying similar wages who immediately try to get ahold of the lists of laid off staff from these layoffs hoping to hire top talent when they're otherwise not even going to hear they're looking.
So I don't know how much this will really change comp levels? Especially with how frequently software people change jobs anyway.
So I don't know how much this will really change comp levels? Especially with how frequently software people change jobs anyway.
> Wondering how the displaced engineers will impact the rest of the job market
That dream of making local (San Francisco) pay while living wherever you want will quickly evaporate.
I survived as a software engineer through the dot-com crash. This isn't even a crash, this is just seems like a minor correction to "normal" for most of these companies with head-counts through the roof.
But SV salaries were abnormal, and that should be taken into account. There are a lot of us, doing a lot of the same stuff, for a lot less pay out there.
Why? For all sorts of various reasons. And this is now rapidly taking into account the entire globe.
That dream of making local (San Francisco) pay while living wherever you want will quickly evaporate.
I survived as a software engineer through the dot-com crash. This isn't even a crash, this is just seems like a minor correction to "normal" for most of these companies with head-counts through the roof.
But SV salaries were abnormal, and that should be taken into account. There are a lot of us, doing a lot of the same stuff, for a lot less pay out there.
Why? For all sorts of various reasons. And this is now rapidly taking into account the entire globe.
Yes, tech comp is about to come down greatly across the board.
We’ve barely seen the start of layoffs yet, and the Fed is pedal to the metal on engineering a recession. Tech falls first due to highest discount rate sensitivity
We’ve barely seen the start of layoffs yet, and the Fed is pedal to the metal on engineering a recession. Tech falls first due to highest discount rate sensitivity
Disagree with "across the board". Tech still has a lot of difficult problems and a crazy amount of money to be made, so premium talent will continue to command premium salaries. It's just that a "staff engineer" 4 years out of college won't be able to sleep their way into $500K in salary + stock.
Comp is dictated by labor market dynamics, not by profitability of the product.
If you have 10 engineers of roughly equal skill competing for the same role, the company has more leverage to offer lower comp than if there’s just 1, or less than one.
Profitability just sets a cap on what can be paid.
That being said, I do agree that the best of the best will likely be able to maintain mid 6 figure comps. But it won’t be the norm as it has been.
There’s also theory vs practice. In practice very few companies have a high level of confidence about being able to quantify how much one engineer is worth vs another. Which is why 10x engineers can’t capture significantly higher comp than the median, even in the current (recent) market
If you have 10 engineers of roughly equal skill competing for the same role, the company has more leverage to offer lower comp than if there’s just 1, or less than one.
Profitability just sets a cap on what can be paid.
That being said, I do agree that the best of the best will likely be able to maintain mid 6 figure comps. But it won’t be the norm as it has been.
There’s also theory vs practice. In practice very few companies have a high level of confidence about being able to quantify how much one engineer is worth vs another. Which is why 10x engineers can’t capture significantly higher comp than the median, even in the current (recent) market
Does this logic work for lawyers? "Biglaw" firms are similar to FAANG in that it is a handful of companies that offer very high comp (235k for first year). There is a deluge of folks that apply from all universities to biglaw but generally they primarily hire from top tier law schools and even then not all make it.
Similar for Big 3 consulting firms (BCG, Bain, McKinsey) in that there is a huge application pool for positions but they are difficult to get and provide high pay.
Similar for Big 3 consulting firms (BCG, Bain, McKinsey) in that there is a huge application pool for positions but they are difficult to get and provide high pay.
Yeah, for sure.
But in those cases the number of jobs is much more limited than was the case in tech in recent years.
Finance is a similar example. Bankers get paid a lot, but the number of them has been pretty static.
But in those cases the number of jobs is much more limited than was the case in tech in recent years.
Finance is a similar example. Bankers get paid a lot, but the number of them has been pretty static.
Interestingly revenue per employee (1.2 - 1.8 mil per employee) at biglaw companies is similar to FAANG although i'd guess biglaw margins are higher as you have less other costs (infra).
https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=178&name=Latham-%26...
https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=178&name=Latham-%26...
No more $150k DevOps engineers that don't know how disk partitions or Python actually work?
I just landed a $175k full time base gig that didn't ask about either of those, just terraform and kubernetes and AWS all day long. Also, my resume is riddled with nothing but short term stints since the start of the pandemic, but doesn't seem to have effected my prospects. Now to be fair, I do actually know both python and linux essentials, and can google and troubleshoot my way through most common infra issues. I would say I am at least mediocre enough to get most of the work done in a reasonable time frame at this point.
> tech comp is about to come down greatly across the board.
To be honest the total comps for some FAANG companies had gone into the crazy territory, there was no way for a up and coming startup to compete against comps of 500-600k (or so I had read) that decent engineers were getting.
I mean, there was a way, but in exchange those start-ups had to promise the world and then some, which was not ideal, to say the least. That's how we got lots of "fake" unicorns, which only now are beginning to get back to Earth.
To be honest the total comps for some FAANG companies had gone into the crazy territory, there was no way for a up and coming startup to compete against comps of 500-600k (or so I had read) that decent engineers were getting.
I mean, there was a way, but in exchange those start-ups had to promise the world and then some, which was not ideal, to say the least. That's how we got lots of "fake" unicorns, which only now are beginning to get back to Earth.
Probably they will be absorbed at lower salaries / equity. But SF real estate, holy shit. Dump it now if you have any
Do you have any information about the size of the layoff / when it will be? I'm a new grad who started two months ago and is very anxious about this.
There likely won’t be one. They have other ways of reducing headcount.
Don't speculate. And what does "stay safe" even mean? Unless you mean stay safe from folks making baseless insinuations.
You’d be wrong about that.
Imagine that. Literally to be announced the day after Election Day. Some coincidence.
It could be a total coincidence, could be designed to take advantage of a news cycle that's already full, could be that it has taken them this long to put a plan together since their stock started dropping. If your theory is that there's a political motivation there are a couple of simpler explanations before we jump to that conclusion.
What are you implying?
Probably that it will be more unnoticed because of it
Overtly or not a lot of their staff were employed to "don't let Twitter overtake us", that dose start to look a bit redundant.
I wonder if we'll see the outpouring of barely disguised schadenfreude that accompanied the Twitter layoffs. Then again Zuckerberg seems like a boring drone of a person, whereas Musk has the sub-Trumpian "I alone can fix this" aura that seems to attract so many.
Musk looks like the disorganized mess he's making at Twitter, the kind of "visionary" we've all had to work with and who has sucked the will to live out of us: unreasonable expectations, constant changes of trajectory, the feeling that one well-spent night or one too many drinks for them would make our lives heaven or hell.
Zuck is spending billions on a bet that, frankly, seems like nothing more than a nerd's dream. I am cautious in my observation, and I think it is a caution shared by many, for who could have predicted the adoption of the automobile, the personal computer, the internet, the smartphone, social media? And so much leeway is given to this case as well, forgetting that other supposed "manifest destinies" of technology, such as flying cars and robotic sex dolls, have gone by the wayside partly because of technical limitations and partly because, in the end, no one cares about them, either for now or forever.
But we have seen the same ups and downs in many historical figures, the Churchills, the Napoleons, the Einsteins, who, after proving themselves to be brilliant as well as favored by the stars, failed to repeat later what gave them notoriety, success and admiration. Perhaps they ran out of luck, perhaps no one had the courage to tell them that it was time for retirement.