Tech’s talent wars have come back to bite it(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Tech’s talent wars have come back to bite it
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/big-tech-layoffs.html
85 comments
This is typical NYT reporting on tech.
"I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it." [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192
"I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it." [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192
This decision matters because the NYT influences other journalists to a large degree.
The person who took that autocratic decision was AG Sulzberger, the 37-year old publisher and chairman of the NYT. Surely a man wielding so much power and influence would have earned the post through merit and hard work, right? In reality it’s a hereditary post of the Sulzberger family.
It’s shocking that a man who is a product of nepotism has so little written about him. Where’s the investigative reporting into this momentous decision 5 years ago? Where’s the criticism for biasing reporters in this manner? There’s nothing because the family is that powerful.
The person who took that autocratic decision was AG Sulzberger, the 37-year old publisher and chairman of the NYT. Surely a man wielding so much power and influence would have earned the post through merit and hard work, right? In reality it’s a hereditary post of the Sulzberger family.
It’s shocking that a man who is a product of nepotism has so little written about him. Where’s the investigative reporting into this momentous decision 5 years ago? Where’s the criticism for biasing reporters in this manner? There’s nothing because the family is that powerful.
> The person who took that autocratic decision was AG Sulzberger,
What evidence is there of this?
Asking because it's not traditionally the case that the NYT editorial staff needs to be interfered with by ownership in order to make terrible decisions.
What evidence is there of this?
Asking because it's not traditionally the case that the NYT editorial staff needs to be interfered with by ownership in order to make terrible decisions.
This wasn’t instructions to the editorial staff, it was to the regular reporters. This is alleged by reporters who heard of it second hand.
I wish I could link you to the investigative exposé about this decision published by the NYT, but they don’t look inward. And no other paper looked at them either. Instead they sycophantically copied the same direction to investigate tech.
I wish I could link you to the investigative exposé about this decision published by the NYT, but they don’t look inward. And no other paper looked at them either. Instead they sycophantically copied the same direction to investigate tech.
> they don’t look inward
On that point we can agree.
On that point we can agree.
Not so at all. The Judy Miller warmongering fiasco was directly attributable to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (A.G. Sulzberger's dad), whose favorite she was for whatever reason.
Matt Yglesias claimed it in a meme: https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1588193914640...
quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
You lose faith in media once you know that the same journalistic scrutiny is applied to the person at helm of NYT.
You lose faith in media once you know that the same journalistic scrutiny is applied to the person at helm of NYT.
A man wielding so much power and influence I’ve never heard of them.
Start a campaign against them.
Oh that’s right it’s on everyone else to organize as you desire.
Paranoid delusions of the anti-social crowd is all this rambling adds up to.
Start a campaign against them.
Oh that’s right it’s on everyone else to organize as you desire.
Paranoid delusions of the anti-social crowd is all this rambling adds up to.
> that I’ve never heard of him
That’s my whole point, which flew right over your head. This is a man who has inherited power and influence. There’s no incentive for the NYT to investigate their own publisher + chairman. There seems to be little appetite for anyone else to do so either. So basically there’s no scrutiny of how he wields his power, or how nepotism is rife at the top of the NYT. That’s why you haven’t heard of him.
Do you understand now?
That’s my whole point, which flew right over your head. This is a man who has inherited power and influence. There’s no incentive for the NYT to investigate their own publisher + chairman. There seems to be little appetite for anyone else to do so either. So basically there’s no scrutiny of how he wields his power, or how nepotism is rife at the top of the NYT. That’s why you haven’t heard of him.
Do you understand now?
There’s no sense believing he has power and influence. I’ve never heard of him? What power and influence? What paper named NYT?
Do you understand how to deal with figurative displays of power? They’re not going to come after us if we actively promote the idea they’re actually weak and useless.
Turn public sentiment against the idea of ephemeral power and value stores.
Do you understand how to deal with figurative displays of power? They’re not going to come after us if we actively promote the idea they’re actually weak and useless.
Turn public sentiment against the idea of ephemeral power and value stores.
hoseja(2)
The tweets are remarkably scant on details as to when this occurred. Unless it's just assumed that nothing older than a week is ever discussed, in the current zeitgeist.
Right sure no one on Twitter has an angle to push with vague statements
I mishear or take things out of context all the time. I’m sure this random Twitter person is not misremembering.
You’re being played emotionally.
I mishear or take things out of context all the time. I’m sure this random Twitter person is not misremembering.
You’re being played emotionally.
This is incidentally a valid reason for HN to blacklist the NYT domain, at least until a formal reversal of the policy.
The NYTimes has been hostile to tech for as long as I can remember, and my memory on the matter goes back to the 90's when Thomas Friedman was writing about how our jobs were going to India practically every other week. After Google had taken off, that stopped, and they changed their tone to some sort of embrace-and-extend.
It's been many many years of this. It's not going to change. The signal-to-noise ratio isn't going to improve. To that set of folks, we'll always be a bunch of picks and shovels. There's a subset of the liberal artsy crowd that will always see STEM as being lesser intellectually, and that's who these articles are written for. To be sure, that doesn't mean that STEM folks should be anti-liberal-arts. Folks on the engineering side need to own what that side of intellectual life offers, because you can bet that there'll be other (traditional-management-and-corporate) folks leveraging the liberal artsy side and learning what they can about tech so they can "manage" it. To which end, I would also consider this article a reminder and temperature read.
I'm indifferent if the narrative would drive away some talented students into other industries. Raw talent isn't all that there is. There were plenty of 10x programmers in the field before tech got big. And not everyone going into the big giants would be so good in a startup. If you ask me, there's other stuff at play, like the competition between programmers today, and the drive to climb the ladder above all else – those things more or less negate whatever benefit the bump in talent was, because those things don't help startups. Those things are much more readily harnessed by the truly big companies.
It's been many many years of this. It's not going to change. The signal-to-noise ratio isn't going to improve. To that set of folks, we'll always be a bunch of picks and shovels. There's a subset of the liberal artsy crowd that will always see STEM as being lesser intellectually, and that's who these articles are written for. To be sure, that doesn't mean that STEM folks should be anti-liberal-arts. Folks on the engineering side need to own what that side of intellectual life offers, because you can bet that there'll be other (traditional-management-and-corporate) folks leveraging the liberal artsy side and learning what they can about tech so they can "manage" it. To which end, I would also consider this article a reminder and temperature read.
I'm indifferent if the narrative would drive away some talented students into other industries. Raw talent isn't all that there is. There were plenty of 10x programmers in the field before tech got big. And not everyone going into the big giants would be so good in a startup. If you ask me, there's other stuff at play, like the competition between programmers today, and the drive to climb the ladder above all else – those things more or less negate whatever benefit the bump in talent was, because those things don't help startups. Those things are much more readily harnessed by the truly big companies.
ten years before that, for readers in Palo Alto, NYT tech analysis of the PC world was the source of hilarity -- so out of touch.
I thought Friedman is pro globalization?
Companies not in the 'tech' sector employ a sizable population of software developers and IT people. The average NYT reader may not know or understand this. People see "tech" and think of the Silicon Valley startup, with ping pong and the lavish perks. Average consumers of news generally have a negative view of these workers, because they get paid very well to "do nothing" and sit at a desk, plus the generous perks/benefits. You see this in any conversation involving housing too. Tech workers move to low cost of living areas and displace locals.
> now that it's a tiny bit more difficult for the big tech companies to suck up all the oxygen in the room.
It's now well established that Software is Eating the World. This downturn is just Software taking a small break between meals.
It's now well established that Software is Eating the World. This downturn is just Software taking a small break between meals.
Par for course: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
It’s no surprise that after a decade of loose monetary policy, there’s a shakeout in capital-intensive industries like tech. That’s painful in the short term, but it’s a good thing overall. It’s necessary for capital to be better allocated across the economy.
It’s no surprise that after a decade of loose monetary policy, there’s a shakeout in capital-intensive industries like tech. That’s painful in the short term, but it’s a good thing overall. It’s necessary for capital to be better allocated across the economy.
Tech is one of the least capital-intensive industries, no?
Paying developers to build new products is a capital expenditure.
Typically employees are considered operating expenditure, not capital expenditure.
The term of art is "capitalized labor." For example, this is from Microsoft's accounting policies:
> Costs incurred internally in researching and developing a computer software product are charged to expense until technological feasibility has been established for the product. Once technological feasibility is established, software costs are capitalized until the product is available for general release to customers.
Then later
> The amortization of these costs is included in cost of revenue over the estimated life of the products.
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar21/index.html
> Costs incurred internally in researching and developing a computer software product are charged to expense until technological feasibility has been established for the product. Once technological feasibility is established, software costs are capitalized until the product is available for general release to customers.
Then later
> The amortization of these costs is included in cost of revenue over the estimated life of the products.
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar21/index.html
> I'm excited to see what new companies are going to form in the next few years now that it's a tiny bit more difficult for the big tech companies to suck up all the oxygen in the room
Here's hoping. Although it's market dynamics at work, I often wish that software developers (myself included) and related were paid a little bit more sensibly, so that other industries could afford to hire software developers and that smaller scale software became more viable.
I think there are plenty of companies that don't necessarily need to be "eaten by software", they could just do some cool stuff if only it were affordable to hire a developer. I mean bespoke programs that help the company do stuff. Make people's lives better kind of stuff, rather than making bucket loads of cash kind of stuff. It's also a really fun role, it has the fun of bespoke automation and problem solving while also being part of the community you live in. Those kinds of opportunities just don't exist now because no company would expect to afford a software developer.
I have a hard time articulating what I mean usually, I'm not a tech bubble hater, I just see opportunities elsewhere going unfulfilled because it wouldn't make the bucket loads of cash needed to pay for the developers at current market rates.
Here's hoping. Although it's market dynamics at work, I often wish that software developers (myself included) and related were paid a little bit more sensibly, so that other industries could afford to hire software developers and that smaller scale software became more viable.
I think there are plenty of companies that don't necessarily need to be "eaten by software", they could just do some cool stuff if only it were affordable to hire a developer. I mean bespoke programs that help the company do stuff. Make people's lives better kind of stuff, rather than making bucket loads of cash kind of stuff. It's also a really fun role, it has the fun of bespoke automation and problem solving while also being part of the community you live in. Those kinds of opportunities just don't exist now because no company would expect to afford a software developer.
I have a hard time articulating what I mean usually, I'm not a tech bubble hater, I just see opportunities elsewhere going unfulfilled because it wouldn't make the bucket loads of cash needed to pay for the developers at current market rates.
[deleted]
The expectation was tech is being juiced by cheap money and it was proven out.
None of the big tech CEOs except perhaps Cook, have presented a future vision to put people on. They’re making money with price increases and staff reductions. Tech deserves to be dumped on hard, as it was government funded socialism squandered.
They’re not superstars but typical middle managers. Being good with computers is not what it used to be in this economy.
What are all these laid of workers going to do? Start dotcoms? Been there, done that is not going to sway the public.
You live in a filter bubble.
None of the big tech CEOs except perhaps Cook, have presented a future vision to put people on. They’re making money with price increases and staff reductions. Tech deserves to be dumped on hard, as it was government funded socialism squandered.
They’re not superstars but typical middle managers. Being good with computers is not what it used to be in this economy.
What are all these laid of workers going to do? Start dotcoms? Been there, done that is not going to sway the public.
You live in a filter bubble.
the market values of big tech growth companies with no dividends did, to some extent.
It’s hard to just blame the employers when I have seen so many people, most especially on HN, dying to treat employers as fashion accessories. Don’t tell me the rest of you haven’t seen developers fawning over themselves to become a part of FAANG. Even with the layoffs I still see people on here dreaming of FAANG.
I imagine that sentiment is with the younger crowd. The fawning over FAANG seems to be a new grad/junior thing. It very much reminds me of young bragging over which Big 4/public accounting firm they were going to join, or which investment bank. The senior/experienced people know that a job is more than the name or endless swag.
Apple and Google are kind of a cut above the rest there, from a prestige point of view, right? Netflix is fine. Amazon is... "well good luck dude, don't get burnout." Facebook... I'll bag groceries instead, might not make as much money but at least I'll be helping people.
It depends on your position. Prestige is not really about morals, it's about selectivity and compensation. If you are in hardware or a designer, Apple is a cut above everyone else. If you are in software, it's probably Google/Meta/Netflix cuts above the rest you listed.
I guess it depends on your team/role/function re: prestige. Naturally, the technical hiring bar has dropped as these companies have grown.
> The senior/experienced people know that a job is more than the name or endless swag.
And even than the money for people I know, myself included. I want to like the work and the people most of the time and I want a life and side projects next to it. I don't care if the compensation is less for that.
And even than the money for people I know, myself included. I want to like the work and the people most of the time and I want a life and side projects next to it. I don't care if the compensation is less for that.
It's more that you see yourself doing FAANG Level work at other companies without FAANG Level compensation that keeps those dreams going.
I don't quite understand. I like challenges; I don't mind doing "FAANG Level work", whatever that means, at a small company. I don't care much for salary beyond getting a good salary for my locale. Having a great work/life balance is much more important to me. I don't want a "FAANG Level compensation" if that means I've got to move, work crazy hours, have absurd living expenses, have a lot of interview rounds with stupid coding tests, have a continuous fear of layoffs, have a lot of bureaucracy, etc.
What if moving to a FAANG means you work just the same as before, except get paid twice as much and are surrounded by competent colleagues?
> FAANG means you work just the same as before, except get paid twice as much
(Ex fang) : Wish this were true. My experience is its working on a stack of entirely proprietary/2nd-rate tools with minimal documentation, weekly bugs within your core toolset, and with as much as 50% of your time being people-work.
(Ex fang) : Wish this were true. My experience is its working on a stack of entirely proprietary/2nd-rate tools with minimal documentation, weekly bugs within your core toolset, and with as much as 50% of your time being people-work.
Sounds about right based on my experience too. But the pay is hard to beat. Even with the stock drops I'm still at 500k...
> and are surrounded by competent colleagues
Current FAANG employee here -- how I wish this were true.
Current FAANG employee here -- how I wish this were true.
Not trying to attack your experiences, but have you spent much time outside of FAANG?
As someone who did both (and have been at FAANG and the likes more recently), of course you will find incompetent colleagues everywhere, FAANG or not. The difference is, how many of those relative to the competent ones you will find on average.
It is a very different situation when a team of 8 has a couple incompetent devs vs. when a team of 8 has only a couple competent devs (aka the inverse).
Not trying to say that this is universally true for both FAANG and non-FAANG, exceptions apply in both cases and are based on a chance. Of course there are startups and non-tech companies that are composed almost entirely of very strong and competent devs. And there are some teams at FAANGs that are in "rest and vest" mode. But on average, that observation about the averages seemed to be true based on my personal experiences.
As someone who did both (and have been at FAANG and the likes more recently), of course you will find incompetent colleagues everywhere, FAANG or not. The difference is, how many of those relative to the competent ones you will find on average.
It is a very different situation when a team of 8 has a couple incompetent devs vs. when a team of 8 has only a couple competent devs (aka the inverse).
Not trying to say that this is universally true for both FAANG and non-FAANG, exceptions apply in both cases and are based on a chance. Of course there are startups and non-tech companies that are composed almost entirely of very strong and competent devs. And there are some teams at FAANGs that are in "rest and vest" mode. But on average, that observation about the averages seemed to be true based on my personal experiences.
[deleted]
I’m sure it’s variable but mine are great.
I know far too many people working in FAANG to know that what you say isn't true. And double the salary means nothing when you're living in an area who's real estate is 4x more expensive than where you are currently. As far as working with competent colleagues - I have a secret for you: they're not all working at FAANG companies nor do they desire to.
If you have FAANG level comp, you can structure your life so you are not afraid of layoffs.
I don't even have that level of comp but all the same I was a little disappointed I didn't get laid off from my last job because a severance package would've been nice.
I think the key there is them believing they're doing FAANG level work and feeling that they're not being compensated to the right level doesn't mean either of those are true.
Also, shouldn't it be MAANA now instead of FAANG?
Also, shouldn't it be MAANA now instead of FAANG?
Maybe ANAMA? And when Pinterest makes it big, it will become PANAMA.
[deleted]
There is a disconnect between “tech talent” and the overlap of layoffs. Sure, some firms have downsized across the board, but plenty of layoffs we are seeing in the last 12 weeks is focused on areas other than engineering.
Depending on how long and deep the recession is, engineers will get impacted at some point.
Where does this narrative come from? Yes, engineers are also impacted at this point.
Sure, but tech companies need marketing, product and recruiters too. Even if it's a software business, it can't just be run by software engineers (even if FB came closer than any other company I've worked for).
Across the executive mea culpas, there is this theme of "I over estimated demand". But, one could take the perspective that they correctly hired to extract value during peak demand, because on average each new resource is profitable, and are now are reducing resources because there is less value there to extract. An investor could argue that it is irresponsible not to hire for peaks and thus leave value inthe market. Tech jobs are always tied to the ups and downs of economic cycles. Perhaps the mea culpas are really "this cycle ended before I expected it to". Some roles and some firms are more buffered than others. It would be nice to know how volatile your value is.
I don't think the mea culpa is at all honest—I think he hired up when demand was high, knowing that he'd just shed the extra load when demand dropped. I don't think this course of action was a surprise, I think it was the expected course of action internally when they hired.
Alternate take: The NYT wants to blame tech bros for inflation caused by bad policy. It’s as simple as that.
In the past year, I have worked with people making six figures in technical positions that know as much about computers as my grandmother. And I'm not exaggerating (and she's no Grace Hopper). Like, doesn't understand the basics of how a computer works, much less an operating system (and I don't mean the kernel, I mean like, what a shell is, how programs are executed, environment variables, file permissions, devices, local networking, local storage, symbolic links, user accounts, etc).
There is a sea of candidates who are both insanely ill-equipped, yet pass interviews regularly. I believe the competent candidate pool was probably exhausted 5 years ago, and businesses just kept hiring clueless people because they felt they had no choice. They aren't given enough user support and no training at all. As a result, employees are much less productive, struggling to do basic computing tasks when they were hired as technical people. And yet are payed vast sums by companies with more money than sense.
There is a sea of candidates who are both insanely ill-equipped, yet pass interviews regularly. I believe the competent candidate pool was probably exhausted 5 years ago, and businesses just kept hiring clueless people because they felt they had no choice. They aren't given enough user support and no training at all. As a result, employees are much less productive, struggling to do basic computing tasks when they were hired as technical people. And yet are payed vast sums by companies with more money than sense.
Can they do the job they were hired for? Because if someone has a good attitude, can write good enough code, and is willing to learn I can quickly teach them the Linux basics.
Like, if someone doesn't know how to chmod or how to set up a .zshrc, I can get them up and running in an afternoon.
These folks aren't clueless, they've just learned at a higher level of abstraction then you did. That's fine.
Like, if someone doesn't know how to chmod or how to set up a .zshrc, I can get them up and running in an afternoon.
These folks aren't clueless, they've just learned at a higher level of abstraction then you did. That's fine.
I've worked places like that, and the issues are really threefold:
1) There is often a substantial depth of knowledge missing. E.g. it's not that they don't know how chmod works, it's that they don't understand conceptual models of filesystem permissions and the implications of having overly broad permissions.
2) The problem is often pervasive, where it isn't a single person that doesn't understand, it's a substantial (but non-majority) portion of the workforce.
3) Employees often only stay in their role for a year or two, creating a revolving door of people who don't understand X or Y.
> Can they do the job they were hired for?
It often depends on your definition of "doing the job". "chmod -R 777" will fix whatever issue is blocking the code from working, but is bad. And then someone else will use those permissions to build on top of that application, and it can spiral into a situation where it's incredibly hard to fix the bad permissions because of an unclear web of dependencies.
The app works, but the architecture is fubar.
1) There is often a substantial depth of knowledge missing. E.g. it's not that they don't know how chmod works, it's that they don't understand conceptual models of filesystem permissions and the implications of having overly broad permissions.
2) The problem is often pervasive, where it isn't a single person that doesn't understand, it's a substantial (but non-majority) portion of the workforce.
3) Employees often only stay in their role for a year or two, creating a revolving door of people who don't understand X or Y.
> Can they do the job they were hired for?
It often depends on your definition of "doing the job". "chmod -R 777" will fix whatever issue is blocking the code from working, but is bad. And then someone else will use those permissions to build on top of that application, and it can spiral into a situation where it's incredibly hard to fix the bad permissions because of an unclear web of dependencies.
The app works, but the architecture is fubar.
Would you hire a lawyer that can't tie his shoes?
Your example is poor, because most 8 year olds don't know how local networking works, but do know how shoes work.
But I'll engage with the questions intent. Would you hire a lawyer who doesn't know all the skills of their trade yet, because they are just entering the workforce? Does it impact his ability to practice law? Are they interested in learning but never had the opportunity? Sure, assuming I had something very straightforward I needed them for.
Heck, a lot of places offer discounts or free legal support based entirely on this premise - having an issue as a tenant? Go ask a young lawyer who is volunteering their time and is missing some skills, but knows the basics of landlord tenant laws.
But I'll engage with the questions intent. Would you hire a lawyer who doesn't know all the skills of their trade yet, because they are just entering the workforce? Does it impact his ability to practice law? Are they interested in learning but never had the opportunity? Sure, assuming I had something very straightforward I needed them for.
Heck, a lot of places offer discounts or free legal support based entirely on this premise - having an issue as a tenant? Go ask a young lawyer who is volunteering their time and is missing some skills, but knows the basics of landlord tenant laws.
Let me correct their example to make it more on topic and relevant to the problem.
Would you hire a lawyer who cannot use a computer (so no email, digital records, etc) and communucates exclusively through fax machines?
Mind you, they can claim to be a good lawyer otherwise, since none of those things directly contradict their claim of good lawyer skills. But something tells me that if they don't use digital record-keeping and can't utilize PACER, I will have my doubts in their practical usefulness.
Would you hire a lawyer who cannot use a computer (so no email, digital records, etc) and communucates exclusively through fax machines?
Mind you, they can claim to be a good lawyer otherwise, since none of those things directly contradict their claim of good lawyer skills. But something tells me that if they don't use digital record-keeping and can't utilize PACER, I will have my doubts in their practical usefulness.
If they are willing to learn, and I need a cheap, entry level lawyer, why not?
Show up at office, get paperwork for a lease or a will, pay the lawyer, and move on.
An entry level engineer who doesn't know Linux is fine. An entry level lawyer who doesn't know pacer is fine. You just have to train them and only give them work they can handle with their skill set.
Some of the strongest engineers who walked through my teams started with no practical Linux knowledge, but they had a can do attitude. Give me the inexperienced but driven engineer over the experienced but unmoving engineer 10 out of 10 times.
Show up at office, get paperwork for a lease or a will, pay the lawyer, and move on.
An entry level engineer who doesn't know Linux is fine. An entry level lawyer who doesn't know pacer is fine. You just have to train them and only give them work they can handle with their skill set.
Some of the strongest engineers who walked through my teams started with no practical Linux knowledge, but they had a can do attitude. Give me the inexperienced but driven engineer over the experienced but unmoving engineer 10 out of 10 times.
> If they are willing to learn, and I need a cheap, entry level lawyer, why not?
I am all for letting people to learn on the job. But I, personally, would rather not risk it, knowing that the difference between them "learning as they go" and already knowing it might end up making the difference between me walking free and ending up in jail.
If it was something more trivial and with much lower stakes, like a traffic violation ticket, then sure, I wouldn't be so opposed to a lawyer that is figuring things out as they go.
Also, I think you might've missed the point of my original comment. It is one thing when a lawyer might not know something due to still learning their stuff, and another one when it is clear that they arent willing/planning to do so. If someone still uses fax as their primary mode of communication and refuses to use computers altogether in 2022, I have a feeling that it isn't due to them still trying to get the hang of it.
I am all for letting people to learn on the job. But I, personally, would rather not risk it, knowing that the difference between them "learning as they go" and already knowing it might end up making the difference between me walking free and ending up in jail.
If it was something more trivial and with much lower stakes, like a traffic violation ticket, then sure, I wouldn't be so opposed to a lawyer that is figuring things out as they go.
Also, I think you might've missed the point of my original comment. It is one thing when a lawyer might not know something due to still learning their stuff, and another one when it is clear that they arent willing/planning to do so. If someone still uses fax as their primary mode of communication and refuses to use computers altogether in 2022, I have a feeling that it isn't due to them still trying to get the hang of it.
"You just have to train them"
I have never worked anywhere where engineers got basic training. They were just expected to perform, and so they would perform poorly, because they lacked so much basic knowledge. There's such inconsistency and such little understanding that they often confuse each other and waste each other's time trying to figure out simple things.
That's the bulk of the entire industry now.
I have never worked anywhere where engineers got basic training. They were just expected to perform, and so they would perform poorly, because they lacked so much basic knowledge. There's such inconsistency and such little understanding that they often confuse each other and waste each other's time trying to figure out simple things.
That's the bulk of the entire industry now.
That's unfortunate. Both Google and Amazon gave my teams ample ramp up time. We used that to fix knowledge gaps and get people comfortable with our stack.
And everyone was expected to learn new skills over time, no matter their level or experience.
And everyone was expected to learn new skills over time, no matter their level or experience.
I don't think the first paragraph and the second paragraph necessarily flow into one another. I've worked with a lot of people in tech that are very proficient at their jobs that have no clue about "basic" computing stuff like local networking, symlinks, chmod, user accounts, etc.. Because they don't need to be. And they're definitely worth the 6 figures they're paid.
you know how there's that mythical 10x developer? what we really need is 10x HR. People who find and hire qualified workers 10x better than typical HR departments.
This is mostly true, but I think you're blaming HR for tech teams' own inability to run job interviews effectively. HR might be able to add an X or two, but the tech teams themselves have a 10x gap waiting to be exploited by innovative approaches.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/dLRli
I've seen those videos of "an average day working at BIG_TECH" so it is no wonder they are trimming the fat.
Yesterday a friend working in an EE capacity told me he was laid off in the morning and by late afternoon was asked to come back as a contractor.
Meta may be trying to give Wall Street signals they are being prudent by cutting costs in the press, but actions are showing awareness that they need to double down to win.
Meta may be trying to give Wall Street signals they are being prudent by cutting costs in the press, but actions are showing awareness that they need to double down to win.
I agree..this article seems very click-baitish, which I sadly clicked on.
What company wouldn't want to hire the best? I've been casually making mental notes of the positions/titles of the groups impacted, and it follows common sense that talent acquisition, administrative, junior level employees, units that no longer support the business mission, and low-performing employees (or ones that don't fit the culture) were let go.
If anything, the article could have pointed out that the performance expectations have been shifted-up a notch or two as the remaining employees (once considered to be high-performers) are now "average". This could become a vicious negative feed-back cycle if not appropriately managed.
sigh Corporate life can definitely be a drag. The holidays can't come fast enough!
What company wouldn't want to hire the best? I've been casually making mental notes of the positions/titles of the groups impacted, and it follows common sense that talent acquisition, administrative, junior level employees, units that no longer support the business mission, and low-performing employees (or ones that don't fit the culture) were let go.
If anything, the article could have pointed out that the performance expectations have been shifted-up a notch or two as the remaining employees (once considered to be high-performers) are now "average". This could become a vicious negative feed-back cycle if not appropriately managed.
sigh Corporate life can definitely be a drag. The holidays can't come fast enough!
NYT, and left in general, don’t like the tech that much. It creates inequality, with value going to a small group of talented people. They have responded with regulations, taxation, painting the tech in media in bad ways, highlighting its negative consequences, etc.
Look into relationship of EU with technology.
Look into relationship of EU with technology.
It's more complex than that, I think. Being on the left (the actual left, not some anemic pro corporate centrism that passes for the left like the Dems).
Tech is seen as a potential force for good that has squandered opportunities. Amazon has dramatically gentrified Seattle, for instance, and done little bit shrug and make some relatively small donations to Mary's Place. (Which is good, but not enough.) Meanwhile, they push hard on local politics for a "business friendly" environment and their warehouse workers tell story after story of overwork, union busting, and physical harm.
Facebook and Instagram are great, until you run into problems like Instagrams negative impact on teenager's self esteem and suicide rates. Facebook has historically had some extremely questionable moderation decisions and does a ton of user tracking. But they've also enabled internet access for much of the world.
I think the left often feels ambivalent towards tech because it's something with huge upsides and many negative externalities that tech often shrugs at.
Tech is seen as a potential force for good that has squandered opportunities. Amazon has dramatically gentrified Seattle, for instance, and done little bit shrug and make some relatively small donations to Mary's Place. (Which is good, but not enough.) Meanwhile, they push hard on local politics for a "business friendly" environment and their warehouse workers tell story after story of overwork, union busting, and physical harm.
Facebook and Instagram are great, until you run into problems like Instagrams negative impact on teenager's self esteem and suicide rates. Facebook has historically had some extremely questionable moderation decisions and does a ton of user tracking. But they've also enabled internet access for much of the world.
I think the left often feels ambivalent towards tech because it's something with huge upsides and many negative externalities that tech often shrugs at.
I think there is nothing special about tech. Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft are big companies with a lot of market power. They use their market power to maximize their profits (as they probably should) and perpetuate that market power (as they probably also should since they are not charities).
This has negative effects on many others in the economy. For example, Amazon bleeding out small retailers by capturing their supply chains and treating its own workers badly. Or Facebook manipulating teenagers into using its product despite the known negative effects on their mental health because engagement = money.
In such situations, something needs to counteract these companies' market power in order to reduce the negative effects on others. This can be consumer protections, labor laws, unions, antitrust litigation, or other types of regulation.
We've lived with a ton of such regulation that we don't even think about because it seems common sense. For example, we are not allowed to smoke inside a hospital, send our 10-year-olds to work in coal mines, or (supposedly) be forced to work 70-hour workweeks without overtime pay. It is only that the tech sector is too recent and we haven't figured out how to dampen its negative effects.
This has negative effects on many others in the economy. For example, Amazon bleeding out small retailers by capturing their supply chains and treating its own workers badly. Or Facebook manipulating teenagers into using its product despite the known negative effects on their mental health because engagement = money.
In such situations, something needs to counteract these companies' market power in order to reduce the negative effects on others. This can be consumer protections, labor laws, unions, antitrust litigation, or other types of regulation.
We've lived with a ton of such regulation that we don't even think about because it seems common sense. For example, we are not allowed to smoke inside a hospital, send our 10-year-olds to work in coal mines, or (supposedly) be forced to work 70-hour workweeks without overtime pay. It is only that the tech sector is too recent and we haven't figured out how to dampen its negative effects.
I agree, these aren't anything special and we should treat them like other big companies. The challenge is that the product can be a bit novel, and when the laws try to catch up to that novelty, it's perceived as being "against" tech. When in actuality it's just trying to adapt the rules we have to a changing world.
(I'd disagree that companies should maximize profit, but that's just a bit of an unrelated ideological difference.)
(I'd disagree that companies should maximize profit, but that's just a bit of an unrelated ideological difference.)
Who made you the arbiter of what counts as "the left"?
While a lot of tech companies are going through post-pandemic layoffs, most of them have headcounts that are still larger than where they were in Feb 2020, and have valuations that show steady growth.
My prediction is that over the next decade we're going to see a narrative in the media that hiring is still exceptionally difficult in the technology sector. There's a very real chance that this round of layoffs drives students and recent graduates into other industries if big tech is no longer seen as an easy path to outsized compensation. It was real side effect of the dotcom bust and the 2008 recession.
I'm excited to see what new companies are going to form in the next few years now that it's a tiny bit more difficult for the big tech companies to suck up all the oxygen in the room.