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

Meta and Google are cutting staff

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 408 posts

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#331

Post by est31 »

kibwen wrote: post #310
function_seven wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Stack ranking and related schemes are so obviously going to be gamed, will definitely measure something other than the nominal thing, and will gum up the works. It's one thing to have a Hunger-Games-style hiring process. Bad as that is, there's an expectation that once you've passed…

> I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Intelligence isn't a spectrum, it's an infinite-dimensional space. Someone can be smart on one axis and a dunce on infinity-minus-one other axes. Every genius ever born was almost certainly mediocre at nearly everything outside their expertise.

I wouldn't be so sure about your claim, there were plenty of universal geniuses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

And even today such people exist. Encountering them is often quite an experience. Seeing them being better than you at almost everything is on one hand really nice, on the other hand it makes you wonder what you did wrong. Such folks are usually quite rare though, 1 in a thousand types of people. But I'd imagine Google should be full of them. Or maybe it isn't, idk, given GP.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#332

Post by michaelwww »

function_seven wrote: post #297
cletus wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. Not only is it graded on a curve but to prevent ratings inflation there are quotas for each ratings bucket. Many deny this, even when presented with concrete proof that such quotas exist (but were called "performance targets"). This itself would be fine except that negative ratings have a target percentage of ~10%. This includes regrettable losses and ratings below Meets All Expectations. Such t…

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Stack ranking and related schemes are so obviously going to be gamed, will definitely measure something other than the nominal thing, and will gum up the works. It's one thing to have a Hunger-Games-style hiring process. Bad as that is, there's an expectation that once you've passed…

> where there must be a loser, then of course it will serve as a distraction from accomplishing actual goals

I didn't realize it was this bad. This is awful.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#333

Post by deelowe »

shemnon42 wrote: post #311
deelowe wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assumption being, if you can't pass interviews with another team, you're not good enough to stay. That only works for large campuses and of course, getting another role is more indicative of your networking abilities than skillset and experience.

Less of an interview and more of an informal team-matching coffee chat. They all have access to your co-workers and body of work, so no need to haze you with leetcode again.

That’s going away due to d&i requirements. They want everyone to have to apply for all open positions so internal transfers aren’t given preference over external.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#335

Post by kasey_junk »

baby wrote: post #78
game_the0ry wrote: post #15

I can't read WSJ while at work, but after checking on the financials for both Meta and Alphabet, I do not understand why either would be cutting staff. Both look pretty strong, so I am not sure how cuts are justified or why Zuckerberg has a negative outlook, especially since 2021 was such a great year for both. Do American executives, investors, and start up owners not have the guts for even a moderate stock price dr…

Layoffs are a way to get rid of low performers without legal issues.

I worked doing layoffs and you always say to the press you are removing low performers because what else are you going to say?

In reality that’s not what happens. Instead you get rid of teams, roles or high cost individuals. Why? Because it is much easier to deal with the work the let go individuals are doing and it impacts morale less.

I never saw a stack ranked layoff. The closest was demanding teams all lose someone. But that leaves teams with really good people getting rid of good people and teams full of dogs retaining them.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#336

Post by coolspot »

okdood64 wrote: post #326
throw-8462682 wrote: post #324

Meta kind of screwed everybody here. I am at one of the hyperscalers with some insight into SDE offers. Second half of 2021 things got extremely crazy with Meta offering ridiculous salaries even for junior positions. This caused a chain reaction. Other FAANG had to increase their offers outside the normal bands to fill positions, which caused experienced folks to leave where out of frustration that new hires one leve…

> hyperscalers What is this?

Common term for AWS, GCP, Azure.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#337

Post by ironmagma »

waynesonfire wrote: post #241
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many Michelin stars on the food?

But, I'm not joking. Google has bidets.

I don't honestly know why all of America doesn't have them, and my suspicions are it has something to do with timber shareholders.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#338

Post by blagie »

game_the0ry wrote: post #15

I can't read WSJ while at work, but after checking on the financials for both Meta and Alphabet, I do not understand why either would be cutting staff. Both look pretty strong, so I am not sure how cuts are justified or why Zuckerberg has a negative outlook, especially since 2021 was such a great year for both. Do American executives, investors, and start up owners not have the guts for even a moderate stock price dr…

I'd suggest the Mythical Man-Month. I feel like many big techs would be way more productive with fewer employees. 5-person-teams seem most efficient.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#339

Post by 650 »

tmpz22 wrote: post #304
function_seven wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Stack ranking and related schemes are so obviously going to be gamed, will definitely measure something other than the nominal thing, and will gum up the works. It's one thing to have a Hunger-Games-style hiring process. Bad as that is, there's an expectation that once you've passed…

> how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization At the end of the day even upper management doesn't matter. This is about Owners and Workers and everything in between is just fluff. The $300k - $400k these engineers are making is a rounding error. Turning middle management into cannibals so that one day they might reach slightly higher management is exactly what is suppo…

Exactly.

So many people lose sight of the bigger picture, workers are always cogs in the machine. Luxurious, comfortable cogs, sure. But its crabs in a bucket.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#340

Post by robocat »

paganel wrote: post #31
tempsy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nasdaq is down 30%. Clearly macro factors like rates and inflation and recessionary pressures are putting pressure on rate sensitive companies generally speaking. You can’t just say it’s ad tracking when dozens of mid and large cap tech stocks are down 30-80% ytd

> Clearly macro factors like rates and inflation To quote from the latest Economist [1]: > This logic has broader implications than most investors realise. Now imagine you will receive $100 a year, for ever. By the reasoning above, this has a finite present value, since compound interest means payments in the distant future are almost worthless. With interest rates at 1%, the payment stream is worth $10,000; at 5%, i…

The NPV values didn’t look weird enough, but I got the same results from: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/net-pre... — Values used: Interest Rate = %5, Compounding = 1 times per Period, Line 0 = $0, Line 1 = 5000 periods of $100.

However, I think the economist column/article misses some important points:

1: There is a stereotype that corporations only look at the next quarter’s earnings. The article argues the opposite, that corporations are long term focused. The article needs to address that point.

2: Stocks and dividends should be inflation proof (with some assumptions, such as revenues increase with inflation).

3. The article doesn’t seem to mention bonds, even though it talks about constant $ returns. What?

The most interesting part of the article for me was “The original marshmallow test, it turned out, had a flaw. Exclude some children from better-off families (which seems to make them both more willing to delay gratification and more likely to succeed in later life) and much of its predictive power suddenly disappears.” [Slight edits]

Post reply on HN