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

Meta lays off 11,000 people

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#451

Post by DarkGroku »

ericd wrote: post #284

Sorry for all the people who’ve lost their jobs, but I’m excited to see the awesome world-changing stuff they’ll make now that they’re not spending their time building FB/Instagram.

FB still making 4Billion in profit, all the comments here dont seem to talk about that Twitter wasnt profitable, FB is and laid off 4x the amount of employees, Zuck just saw Musk do it and thought itd be a perfect time while the attention is on Musk and Twitter, that letter Zuck wrote is sick and sounds like its written by a sad emotionless robot he brags about how profitable Meta is in that letter its pathetic, reminds me of the 70s and Reagan and neoliberalism making changes to laws to allow capital flight from New York to the south and firing all the well paid factory workers in the Bronx 10,000 families now without a breadwinner over night Zuck blew through billions on his VR research that no ones buying and just saw the perfect opening to sharpen his technocrat knives and surgically remove 11,000 employees even though they all contributed to making Meta be 4B in profit and it was Zuck who blew billions he needs his stock to bounce back so he can continue buying the rest of Hawaii

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#452

Post by triceratops »

texasbigdata wrote: post #255
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #246

> I got this wrong, and I take responsibility for that. As always with these things, I wonder what taking responsibility actually means in practice. Businesses usually try to find ways to correct for major failures in decision making. In the case of Zuck, given his ownership, does anything actually happen or change? I'm sure his net worth has been reduced by changes to Meta's share price, but he was a multi-billionai…

That’s super pessimistic. What do you want him to say: “sucks all y’all lost your jobs but wasn’t my fault. Haha you’re unemployed now”. Like sure it’s not much, but without owning your mistakes how do you get better and improve to prevent them from repeating?

He can resign. As CEO he's ultimately responsible for the share price. By that measure, he just might be the worst-performing employee at the company.

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#453

Post by nonethewiser »

Ocerge wrote: post #186
marcus_holmes wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the dot-com (and Y2K) bust, when all the people who got into tech for the money (and not the love of it) suddenly decided to switch career. I hope the same happens now.

So you're implying only people who are passionate about tech should be allowed to work in tech? This does not hold water for almost any profession. Tech pays extremely well, and if you can do the work, who cares how you feel about it?

> So you're implying only people who are passionate about tech should be allowed to work in tech?

He said he hopes people voluntarily decide not to work in tech. Why suggest he wants to disallow?

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#454

Post by 2rsf »

crazygringo wrote: post #423
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #246

> I got this wrong, and I take responsibility for that. As always with these things, I wonder what taking responsibility actually means in practice. Businesses usually try to find ways to correct for major failures in decision making. In the case of Zuck, given his ownership, does anything actually happen or change? I'm sure his net worth has been reduced by changes to Meta's share price, but he was a multi-billionai…

It means he's not trying to scapegoat a VP or the board or say "It's not my fault nobody foresaw this economy." It doesn't mean anything in terms of action or "self-punishment" but nor should it. The dude has already lost many more billions of dollars than you or I will ever see. I'm no fan of the guy, but some people won't even take responsibility verbally. So at least he's not descending that low. And the severance…

> The dude has already lost many more billions of dollars than you or I will ever see

Those are mostly virtual dollars and he has a lot more real ones in his account, while I agree that whatever he does to "punish himself" will be practically meaningless it might have some symbolic meaning. Lowering his and senior management salaries and incentives won't save jobs but will give a better image of the crisis

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#455

Post by cnees »

"We’ve shifted more of our resources onto a smaller number of high priority growth areas [like] our long-term vision for the metaverse"

Imagine laying off eleven thousand people so you can keep clinging to the disintegrating corpse of the metaverse.

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#456

Post by nfRfqX5n »

yrgulation wrote: post #303

Many many moons ago when i pointed out that FAANG are modern day fords and chryslers everyone thought i was exaggerating. Actually if you think about it they are in an even more precarious position as no one really _needs_ them and their popularity are a thing of fashion, and are far from too big to fail. Edit: Linkedin shows 300k jobs available in the us for the term "software engineer". I like to think and hope tha…

Very hn take. Nobody really needs Gmail or AWS? just look at what happens when AWS has an partial outage in a single region

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#457

Post by tuyiown »

cableshaft wrote: post #408
discordance wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Today, effective immediately, I, Gavin Belson, founder and CEO of Hooli, am forced to officially say goodbye to the entire Nucleus division. All Nucleus personnel will be given proper notice and terminated. But make no mistake. Though they're the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure."

For someone who barely ever worked an office job, Mike Judge is an expert at portraying office space.

I suspect he mainly had to figure out that it’s the same as everywhere else, but the displayed politeness of office managers make it especially delectable satire.

In Office Space there is the «pieces of flair» argument with the waitress (Aniston), it’s much more bitter, and I suspect much harder to keep it funny, because in truth those worker endured much more violent management, there is little space to spin it in a funny way.

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#458

Post by ilaksh »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #246

> I got this wrong, and I take responsibility for that. As always with these things, I wonder what taking responsibility actually means in practice. Businesses usually try to find ways to correct for major failures in decision making. In the case of Zuck, given his ownership, does anything actually happen or change? I'm sure his net worth has been reduced by changes to Meta's share price, but he was a multi-billionai…

All of them bloated up. It's just like, polite to take the blame.

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#459

Post by LongShip87 »

I recently left my well paying job in a startup to pursue my hobbies for a few months. Now I am looking for a job again. I wonder how will I find a job with so many Meta and Twitter engineers flooding the market :/

PS: I have only worked with startups including a YC startup.

Re: Meta lays off 11,000 people

#460

Post by Enginerrrd »

adamzerner wrote: post #354
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #246

> I got this wrong, and I take responsibility for that. As always with these things, I wonder what taking responsibility actually means in practice. Businesses usually try to find ways to correct for major failures in decision making. In the case of Zuck, given his ownership, does anything actually happen or change? I'm sure his net worth has been reduced by changes to Meta's share price, but he was a multi-billionai…

I think a Bayesian perspective is helpful here. 1) How likely is it that Zuck makes that statement if he feels like he is responsible? 2) How likely is it if he doesn't feel responsible? I think the answers to those questions are quite similar, in which case hearing the statement doesn't actually tell us much.

Just to elaborate on this since I had to think about it and I might save someone else the effort:

Let M = Makes the statement Let R = Feels Responsible Notation: ~R = Not R

Answering OP's questions 1 & 2: I think it's safe to assume P(M|R) = P(M|~R) = 1 So P(M) = 1

So Bayes' theorem simplifies as follows: P(R|M) = P(M|R)P(R)/PM) = P(R)

Thus, OP's point is that the statement tells us essentially nothing about the probability he actually feels responsible or empathetic, and I agree.

Post reply on HN