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

Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 514 posts

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#341

Post by the_doctah »

crackercrews wrote: post #330
slt2021 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies care about diversity numbers when they have a lot of cheap funding. When funding is tough, pure capitalism takes over woke values and it is up to whether your monetary value to the company>your monetary cost to the company.

There are lots of studies claiming that diversity makes companies more successful. But all that I've seen are correlational studies. And those are equally explained by the idea you mentioned. When companies are flush, they spend money on affirmative action. Therefore companies that have heavy affirmative action tend to be more successful.

My employer has specifically called out ESG investments as one of the reasons they have gone super woke.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#342

Post by BonoboIO »

tonymet wrote: post #321

What's to stop everyone from declaring themselves hispanic or black when they are hired? First off, it's probably true to some degree (we're all mixed). Secondly, it's a self selected category. Third, your employer cannot question your selection. Given that it's basically all downside to declare yourself white or asian, I'm expecting almost everyone to start electing black or hispanic in the coming months. For those…

You can be anything you want, look at Elizabeth Warren.

She pretended to be a Native American for more than 30 years. Trump called her Pocahontas and she challenged trump with a dna test. This test is kind of bogus but it proved that she is like 1/1024 Native American.

How can that fly.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#343

Post by pirate787 »

crackercrews wrote: post #171
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, it avoids a perception problem which may be far worse: the hypothetical perception that the people drawing up the layoffs were racist and that they disproportionately affected minorities. They wrote "Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused.." on making sure they did not. If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random,…

> If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random This is a false dichotomy. They could have done layoffs based on the company's needs and the performance of the employees. That isn't random. Your big picture point amounts to a heckler's veto. The more you cater to the heckler, the more powerful the heckler becomes.

I'm going to vote against corporate racism by closing my Twilio account.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#344

Post by whymauri »

quantum_solanum wrote: post #309
Ensorceled wrote: post #168

This line seems to be referenced a lot in these comments: > Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens. Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons. But so man…

I really need to make a HN bingo board one of these days, though it'll have to be like 12x12 or it'll be way too easy.

I'm tempted to build a filter that automatically ignores any comment on HN with the word 'woke.' It is, legitimately, the most annoying culture war I have seen on any forum.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#345

Post by sophacles »

choko wrote: post #310
sophacles wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think like you - Wheres the evidence? They don't have a swastika tatooed on their face and didn't call you a slur, how can you know they were racist? But here's the thing, not all racism is overt. There's more subtle ways it plays out too - patterns of behavior and the like. When I was in my early 20s I worked at a bar owned by a black man, and I'm a white man. His role was basically manager, and I was basi…

More white people own businesses and there are more white people in the USA. It was likely an innocent assumption where no offense is intended. Not everything is as sinister as "anti-racists" claim. I refuse to subscribe to their conspiracy-based hidden racism theories. I'm "glad" you were able to claim your "white privilege". Coming from a low class background, I was not afforded such and have had to struggle to get…

I wonder what would happen if you replied to the post I wrote rather than the one you imagined?

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#346

Post by peter422 »

trention wrote: post #337
quesera wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fallacy that everything you receive from your ancestors is undeserved Is there an intelligent argument that some infants are more deserving than others?

More deserving of what? The argument is that wealth/social capital/whatever accumulated by your ancestors rightfully belongs and can be transferred to you.

Hypothetically speaking, what if your parents stole that money from somebody else in a provable way?

Does it still rightfully belong to you?

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#347

Post by tonymet »

BonoboIO wrote: post #342
tonymet wrote: post #321

What's to stop everyone from declaring themselves hispanic or black when they are hired? First off, it's probably true to some degree (we're all mixed). Secondly, it's a self selected category. Third, your employer cannot question your selection. Given that it's basically all downside to declare yourself white or asian, I'm expecting almost everyone to start electing black or hispanic in the coming months. For those…

You can be anything you want, look at Elizabeth Warren. She pretended to be a Native American for more than 30 years. Trump called her Pocahontas and she challenged trump with a dna test. This test is kind of bogus but it proved that she is like 1/1024 Native American. How can that fly.

Of course she should have stopped that as a tenured professional / politician, but it's perfectly understandable she did that as a young applicant based on her family lore.

It goes to show these policies are clumsy and absurd. They will only make matters so much worse.

Is it reasonable to ask someone to make an election that will result in them not getting or getting fired prematurely ? We're talking about food on the table here.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#348

Post by yesiamyourdad »

John23832 wrote: post #34

(I am a black man) I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping. If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are. That then makes it harder for the minorities you claim to be "helping" to stay in the room anywhere else because of…

When one looks at the industry as a whole, one might conclude that the aim is to turn the working class against each other. It's almost as if the thing corporate America is most afraid of is a unified workforce.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#349

Post by LegitShady »

peter422 wrote: post #132
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me (someone from a former socialist country), both hiring and firing, based on race, seems very very racist. Replace all the groups with "white men", and if it seems racist then, well, it's also racist when it's any other group except "white men".

Serious question: Are you aware of the historical context of the United States as it concerns race? Without looking anything up tell me what you know about it.

serious question - instead of debating the issue, why do you quiz them on their personal knowledge of history? If you'd like to make a point, make it. but demanding they justify their knowledge of history isn't a point in your favor, it rather appears you're incapable of providing a logical argument so will ad hominem their knowledge of history instead.

Who are you to quiz random people on the internet on historical context, and what does that have to do with the legality of hiring or firing based on race?

It seems to me like you're trying to justify institutionalized systematic racism on the basis of 'historical context'.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#350

Post by wizofaus »

crackercrews wrote: post #332
wizofaus wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actual studies showing 95-99% of us have subconscious racist biases. And so what which races they favour? I'd call it a massive fail for any "anti-racist lens" if, say, only whites were fired. (You also mention "men" - subconscious sexist biases are just as universal. For highly skilled roles unfortunately they very much typically favour men.)

The field of subconscious biases suffers from several fatal defects. The scores people get on subconscious bias tests vary wildly over time, even short periods of time. This is a fundamental flaw and should be the end of the inquiry. If we can't measure the thing, we can't draw any conclusions about it. Also, there has never been a linkage drawn between scores on subconscious bias tests and real world actions. Are ra…

Actually we can and do measure it and such linkages have been demonstrated. There are probably more succinct references, but here was one of the first I found:

http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20...

Post reply on HN