151–160 of 408 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but the future is uncertain and when you’re selling ads it’s hard to control revenue. It’s much easier to control expenses.
> the future is uncertain much less uncertain than any other companies IMO. They're printing money.
They're also still recruiting
Just because a job gets posted doesn't mean it is actually available to be filled. The barrier to posting jobs to LinkedIn is extremely low. Don't let yourself be fooled into a false sense of confidence, you'd really need to test the process out to see if it yields an offer!
Some of these comments mentioned in the article coming from Meta's leadership about there being people who shouldn't probably be there or to get rid of coasters seems so inhumane and demoralizing. What kind of leadership is that? I mean it's understandable that businesses have to cut costs, but have some empathy, and understand how words affect people. Just wow. It's so cynical and depressing.
I like it. I really dislike working with under-performers and people who just refuse to do due diligence on their end. I dislike working with people who always want you to come over to their frame of mind rather than trying to get into yours or meet in the middle. I saw a ton of people coasting during Covid. People need to get negative feedback when they deserve it.
When you said you hate others who won't come over to your point of view. How many feel similiar that you won't come over to theirs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, being laid off sounds pretty good right about now. Paid vacation before going back into a hot job market for a full remote job.
The job market seems to have cooled substantially from where I'm looking. I have friends at a lot of different major tech companies and hiring has slowed or stopped in all cases. Earlier this year it was full steam ahead hiring, now it's harder to get reqs, reqs are being pulled, etc. Now, if you have really in-demand skills / experience that may not matter much. But companies are slamming on the breaks. If I was lai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Layoffs are a way to get rid of low performers without legal issues.
Thats what a PIP is for. Layoffs are for firing a lot of people at once. Doesn’t have to be due to performance.
The article highlights that the easiest way for these companies to let go of staff right now is to dissolve entire teams. I've heard from friends that work at these companies that recent hiring freezes have actually made managers more hesitant to fire low performers because anyone they fire can't be replaced and they'd rather have a low performer than no one at all. The team dissolving process seems to sidestep this…
The options seem to be:
* Cut risky or underperforming products or teams and focus company resources on the products and teams that are doing well.
* Or cut staff across the board, leaving all teams struggling to succeed with fewer resources.
The first option seems wiser. "More wood behind fewer arrows", as the saying goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a policy that XX% of engineers in a given department should* be given "Meets Most". If that's not stack ranking I'm not sure what would be. BTW "meets most" likely doesn't sound too bad to non-Metamates. Internally it's a pretty bad mark on your record. It doesn't directly relate to being fired but a ton of people quit when they receive it. I view it as sort of a "pre-PIP" state. (* Managers/directors will…
> "meets most" likely doesn't sound too bad to non-Metamates. Internally it's a pretty bad mark on your record. The kind of newspeak I've heard from multiple friends and former coworkers that ended up at FB/Meta at some point. Well, the ones that didn't fall into the cult of Mark. It might be because I'm getting older but this is the kind of stuff that makes me want to puke. The co-optation of language to exude an au…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's profits dropped last quarter, and that is a rare occurrence for them. Metas revenue actually fell last quarter, with profits dropping 35%. IIRC, that's the first revenue drop they have had since going public. This isn't about stock prices, this is about the strength of the underlying business.
Judging by the financials, the underlying business for both is strong, especially relative to many other kinds of businesses. The drop, still, does not look fatal when considering how much growth there was in 2020 and 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's profits dropped last quarter, and that is a rare occurrence for them. Metas revenue actually fell last quarter, with profits dropping 35%. IIRC, that's the first revenue drop they have had since going public. This isn't about stock prices, this is about the strength of the underlying business.
Judging by the financials, the underlying business for both is strong, especially relative to many other kinds of businesses. The drop, still, does not look fatal when considering how much growth there was in 2020 and 2021.
FB/Meta is the same- They have made some low key progress with Groups, have essentially wiped out craigslist as a marketplace, made some great strategic investments like WhatsApp, and essentially cut their potential replacements off at the knees by quickly copying snapchat and to some extent tik-tok, but Meta also seems poised to throw billions and billions of dollars into this Metaverse furnace, and I just don't see that working out.
I say this as a shareholder of both firms, that I have held since their IPOs or shortly thereafter.
[1] Take their home products for instance. There are nNest protects (smoke detectors/motion detectors), thermostats, cameras and doorbells... its an absolute layup to turn this into a security system far better than the crap ADT pushes. Yet... they just haven't for over 10 years now. And then they try to force a shitty subscription on you to use their cloud features that are really worthless, and have cut off APIs to third parties so I can no longer have my doorbell play through my Sonos. Its kind of maddening to watch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At Meta managers can't really get away with hiding low performers. Your performance review isn't finalized by your manager, but rather the manager submits your review to a calibrating board that tries to ensure fairness and maintain quality standards. They will refute at all cost that this is stack ranking but you are absolutely graded on the curve of the other engineers in your department and level.
> They will refute at all cost that this is stack ranking Graded in the context of peers’ performance does not imply that they sort employees by performance.
But well, stack ranking is not only about sorting (the name is a lie), it's about placing people in fixed sized cohorts. The real question is if there is a limitation on the number of raises or a minimum on the number of people treated as "low performant".