Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber lays off 435 people

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 611 posts

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#141

Post by lucasmullens »

epistasis wrote: post #117
txcwpalpha wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also recently announced plans to hire 3,000+ in Dallas [1] at a brand new massive office. I'm sure the hiring and layoffs are from different business units, but it does seem strange that there's been multiple several-hundred-people-layoff stories form Uber recently at the same time they're announcing otherwise massive hiring expansion. I would at least figure that they would prefer to transfer engineers between…

Does Uber have different pay scales depending on location?

I can't possibly imagine they're paying 3000 Dallas employees a bay area salary.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#142

Post by on_and_off »

sbarre wrote: post #135
simonrobb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really cost anything to open source something though. These are all projects which are developed for a reason: the commercial version might be prohibitively expensive at Uber scale, or not technically capable of operating at Uber scale, or just plain doesn't exist yet. At that point you can engage with the tech community and offer it as OSS (not to mention make your engineers happy), or you can keep it to…

That's not true. It costs quite a bit to open source a product if you're a commercial entity.. It needs to be reviewed (by legal, security, engineering, etc) and approved.. You're not just flipping the public/private flag on the repo.

Also, the doc, blog posts, feedback from the community, evangelization at conferences, thinking out the API design so it answers enough cases, not just yours, all take engineering time, that's not free.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #129
cameronbrown wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is untrue. It doesn't take into account the fact Uber has externalised a bunch of stuff like maintenance onto its drivers. Bringing it in house would sink them imo, human capital or not.

If the maintenance of cars out weighted the profitability for the driver there would be no Uber drivers at all.

> If the maintenance of cars out weighted the profitability for the driver there would be no Uber drivers at all.

This assumes drivers that correctly allocate the source of maintenance costs among all uses of the vehicle in assessing cost/benefit of driving for Uber.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#144

Post by cwperkins »

Is it any coincidence this happens the week that CA is debating a bill that can drastically change how they compensate drivers? It appears like they are trying to gain leverage from an outsider’s perspective.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#145

Post by blackflame7000 »

paxys wrote: post #105
blackflame7000 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea but self-driving would instantly turn Uber into a cash cow and it's not that far away. Edit: By not that far away I'm talking 5-15 years. I'm not talking next week. Amazon burned cash for at least 20 years.

True self driving (no driver, no steering wheel) is far enough away that we don't know for sure if it will ever actually happen.

Well, obviously the people at Google think it's possible or they wouldn't keep investing in Waymo.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#146

Post by simonrobb »

sbarre wrote: post #135
simonrobb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really cost anything to open source something though. These are all projects which are developed for a reason: the commercial version might be prohibitively expensive at Uber scale, or not technically capable of operating at Uber scale, or just plain doesn't exist yet. At that point you can engage with the tech community and offer it as OSS (not to mention make your engineers happy), or you can keep it to…

That's not true. It costs quite a bit to open source a product if you're a commercial entity.. It needs to be reviewed (by legal, security, engineering, etc) and approved.. You're not just flipping the public/private flag on the repo.

Of course. But compare that cost to (say) six full time engineers pumping out code for a couple of years. It's not the dominant cost by any means. Not to mention you're paying those other folks a salary regardless.

If it helps you attract better talent, well - there's a financial incentive there through increased efficiency which I'm sure on its own is more than equal to the review cost.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#147

Post by asveikau »

ageitgey wrote: post #59
bitL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is 3rd/last attempt?

Google will only re-interview you 3 times for the same type of role total. After that, you are out for good.

"Out for good" is weird here. I interviewed with them more than a decade ago. They'd still consider that "signal"?

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#148

Post by pretendscholar »

edw wrote: post #108
jobu wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was absolutely instrumental to the early success. In some places they were actively breaking the law just to operate there, and Kalanick was able disrupt the system and make Uber important enough to change the laws. However, that doesn't mean he should still be CEO. Kalanick also created a company culture that became more and more toxic as it grew larger. Lyft was arguably on the ropes and might've failed without…

You've reminded me of an observation I made recently about Star Wars: the behavior of Han Solo (pre-Greedo-shoots-first-bs) and Darth Vader aren't that different. It's the context that matters. If you're small and scrappy, antisocial behavior makes you a charming scoundrel. If you're big, the same behavior makes you evil.

Han shooting first is totally legitimate. Greedo is an organized crime thug who is going to take Han to an incredibly painful and certain death. It's self-defense even if he shot first.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#149

Post by blackflame7000 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #143
blackflame7000 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the maintenance of cars out weighted the profitability for the driver there would be no Uber drivers at all.

> If the maintenance of cars out weighted the profitability for the driver there would be no Uber drivers at all. This assumes drivers that correctly allocate the source of maintenance costs among all uses of the vehicle in assessing cost/benefit of driving for Uber.

No, it assumes that when a driver can no longer make ends meet since they are paying more in maintenance than they are earning, they will no longer have money for gas to be an Uber driver, thus quitting.

Re: Uber lays off 435 people

#150

Post by MegaButts »

edw wrote: post #108
jobu wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was absolutely instrumental to the early success. In some places they were actively breaking the law just to operate there, and Kalanick was able disrupt the system and make Uber important enough to change the laws. However, that doesn't mean he should still be CEO. Kalanick also created a company culture that became more and more toxic as it grew larger. Lyft was arguably on the ropes and might've failed without…

You've reminded me of an observation I made recently about Star Wars: the behavior of Han Solo (pre-Greedo-shoots-first-bs) and Darth Vader aren't that different. It's the context that matters. If you're small and scrappy, antisocial behavior makes you a charming scoundrel. If you're big, the same behavior makes you evil.

You're completely ignoring the most important data. Han Solo and Darth Vader are not the same person. Maybe one is just more likable than the other?

You can have two different comedians tell identical jokes, word for word, and only one of them will be funny. Jim Jefferies does an entire bit about a journalist who reviews his jokes harshly after transcribing them to text. His conclusion is (paraphrasing) "my entire job is to say offensive things while still being likable."

Post reply on HN