Live data from Hacker News

Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

wsj.com

711–717 of 717 posts

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#711
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if I was visiting Laos and told someone I met in the countryside that I spent, say $2,000 on a racing bicycle -- which would be considered "normal" in bike racing culture in many parts of the US. Imagine what that person would think! My central point is this: People are quick to "normalize" their behavior relative to their perceived peer group. So, yes, multinational CEO compensation is hard to comprehend. (I…

Imagine everyone is on a ladder. In order to ascend they have to step on the faces of the people below them while simultaneously getting their face stepped on by the people above them. Which one do they care more about?

Another way to think about it: Who has various kinds of power? To set pay? To help get one promoted? To help the company succeed?

Treating people well tends to have good long-term results. There are exceptions, situations, and cases where you have to be more cautious. To put it nicely, there are some people who favor shorter-term strategies. We all should recognize there is a fraction of people lacking in awareness or empathy or ethics. Some of the folks, wittingly or unwittingly, will bring down the entire ship if you let them. Still, IMO, a wise, ethical person gives the benefit of the doubt and helps others to the extent possible, without overextending themselves. As time passes, a good strategy is to help relatively more people who (a) need the help; (b) reciprocate, to the degree they are able; (c) and let's face it, those who can help you get a foothold. The third point is based on this logic: if you are a conscientious person, it is your ethical responsibility to not be naive. You should carefully strive to use your power to help. Sometimes this means playing the game.

What I've said above leaves open all sorts of paradoxes, value judgments, and dilemmas. Such is life. I think it is useful to frame ethics as striving towards an ideal (not just a goal) despite all the complexities. I could use all the feedback you all have to offer... I have a long way to go.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#712
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if I was visiting Laos and told someone I met in the countryside that I spent, say $2,000 on a racing bicycle -- which would be considered "normal" in bike racing culture in many parts of the US. Imagine what that person would think! My central point is this: People are quick to "normalize" their behavior relative to their perceived peer group. So, yes, multinational CEO compensation is hard to comprehend. (I…

At my company (non-tech), all leadership compensation is paid based on percentages hit over the next five years. Your first year, you’re only getting 20% off the position’s salary, and 80% goes to your predecessors. When you retire, 20% of your salary got the previous four years is based on how well the company does the year after you leave. It strongly incentivizes healthy transitions and long-term plans.

The study of reinforcement learning, I've found, is incredibly insightful as a way to really force us to operationalize reward functions. I've benefitted from the process of reasoning and exploring RL reward functions.

Sure, I also value game theory, sociology, and psychology as well. People are complex, with culture, identities, imperfect reasoning, and biochemical influences.

That said, one key benefit of RL is the hands-on experimental aspect. You get to play God and see what happens. Surprise triggers cognitive dissonance and drives further questions. In contrast, some academic disciplines become rather enamored with their own theories, to the detriment of operationalizing them.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please cite some of these references?

It's a really approachable theory and contrary to what you'll read in tech message boards - doesn't remotely boil down to "the market can't be wrong". Burton Malkiel (economist most famous for writing "A Random Walk Down Wall St" and being a longtime advisor of Vanguard) has a paper talking about the early 2000's pushback. It gives a good summation / spells out some critiques / offers his reasons for disagreeing: htt…

Thank you very much

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People will say that wasn't really UBI Which makes sense, because it wasn't. A key point of UBI is its consistency: you know you are getting that money every month, indefinitely, and therefore can plan/budget accordingly. A one-time payment? Okay, sure, I can use that to cover my rent this month, but then it's not doing me any good. So why pay my rent with it when I can go gamble with it and maybe luck out? > and w…

There were multiple rounds of stimulus payments.

That were uncertain. UBI premises hinges on certainty.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at a real time brokerage + national bank based out of the Midwest. The entire engineering+ operations team was 128 people, exactly. Including the CIO and his assistant who ruled the 39th floor with an iron fist, a hold over from the dot com era. They're publicly traded. I think they're down to 90 people but still running a functional company with tens of thousands of broker dealers. I have no idea how…

>Including the CIO and his assistant who ruled the 39th floor with an iron fist, a hold over from the dot com era. Please explain? Is ruling the 39th floor a particularly [financial] in-joke?

No that's just the particular floor we happened to be on. I think the bank was on 38 and the trading floor was... 32?, executive suite was 41 or something. We had like five or six floors in the upper third of the 42 story building and a bank branch down in the lobby. They probably would have liked to have contiguous floors but it would have been a lot of work to move the data center and trading floor just to say you had X floors in a row.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#716

The truth is that a majority of tech companies don't need 50%+ of their employees. Google could lay off vast swathes tomorrow and be immensely more profitable without any loss in revenue. The 2010s will be remembered as the golden era for tech employment. The second we start getting industry wide layoffs, the insanely high wage inflation we've seen will kick into reverse much faster than you probably believe possible…

Has any tech company that laid off 50% of it’s employees survived? Maybe one or two. That would seem to indicate that the 50% number is too high.

Perhaps you see it as 50% as like when people say they only need 10% of the functionality of MS Word so they could drop 90%. Except that 10% is different for everyone.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#717
post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't based on any insider knowledge, but I will be very surprised if my current employer, Roblox, has layoffs in the next couple years.

Pretty sure they laid off at least recruiting and ops staff today

Why do you think that? I didn't hear anything about it.
Post reply on HN