Meta Layoffs • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta Layoffs

#41

Post by raverbashing » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:45 AM UTC

> although I’d certainly concede that WFH pares down meeting culture and certainly has benefits in logistics, it’s always been fairly obvious that in-person collaboration is more effective, produces a much stronger culture

When I read this, I translate it to:

"We don't know how to collaborate remotely efficiently, so we don't try anything different and say 'office work is better' "

Yes there's a value to meeting in-person. But don't say the process doesn't work when you don't know how to use the available tools to collaborate

Re: Meta Layoffs

#42

Post by bink » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:48 AM UTC

djha-skin wrote: post #29

His poignant take on weekly remote work is being wrestled to the ground stick me the most: > To me, although I’d certainly concede that WFH pares down meeting culture and certainly has benefits in logistics, it’s always been fairly obvious that in-person collaboration is more effective, produces a much stronger culture, and I suspect is important especially to larger orgs because it helps to even out performance. Hig…

I'd argue that that doesn't have to be the case. The companies that are failing their junior employees and new hires are doing so not because they are remote/WFH, but because those companies did not invest the energy and resources necessary to be good at remote/WFH. There are plenty of companies that focus on remote work and have no issues with onboarding or failing performance.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#43

Post by vineyardmike » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:49 AM UTC

elguyosupremo wrote: post #28

This piece goes from talking about meta layoffs to an indictment of remote work surprisingly quick. I love remote work, because I grew up in a small city with no companies operating in my industry and when covid hit I was able to go full remote, move back home, and be around my friends and family while contributing to my company and to my local economy. The biggest thing that has helped my dev team thrive and be able…

> If anyone has advice on building TZ-distributed teams I would love to hear advice!

You won't love to hear it, because the general way to handle large TZ offsets it to make work async, and it sounds like "mob programing" as you do it is quite sync.

What I've seen work is strong document culture - write docs, leave comments, etc. Have clear expectations on deliverables from the start ("this doc will design service X, impl can start when 3/3 senior engineers approve design by leaving an "I approve" comment). Everyone does their thing, and you don't need to be talking to someone to do it.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#44

Post by neltnerb » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:49 AM UTC

adjkant wrote: post #23

wpietri wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you excited to be writing lots of detailed specs? Especially in a startup, that seems terrible to me. When I've done startups, one of the best things for me about them was close collaboration with the product/design side of the house. Detailed specs would have slowed that down significantly for us.

I've noticed that people can conflate "detailed spec" with "terribly meticulous process". Close collaboration with design/product doesn't mean that writing things down isn't useful, and can come in handy specifically: 1. When capturing complex logic areas, especially if related to any areas that are related to money or legal considerations 2. When onboarding new people on any side who need to learn about or get conte…

I would go further even and say that for any team that doesn't all do just one thing, developing the spec is half the work.

Once all the interconnections are figured out and the mechanical engineers know what needs to hold what shape at what temperature and pressure, and the metallurgists know what chemicals will be touching the metal, and the power connectors to sensors are all numbered so you know how many you need and where they'll go, and the communications lines with what format and inputs/outputs they'll talk to at what voltage... to me a spec is the document that tells everyone where their little part needs to fit.

You have to do that downstream and collect it back upstream for larger projects, since the person doing it never has enough expertise. And then the spec negotiation between teams that don't really necessarily know what constraints each other has which need to be resolved so that people know what to design.

It's frustrating but actually writing down a detailed spec really does enable a lot of other stuff to happen. I'm sometimes blocked as an individual because of a team that's in my path but which isn't really in my field. Say, they do optics and I design the optical sensor so I need to know the optical power to expect but they have to do simulations and get information from the chemists and semiconductor test engineers first. I need a spec for what they want -- I need to know how low the light level is, how much noise there is, and lots of other little details too.

I don't know if that qualifies as "terribly meticulous" but in my experience skipping the spec step often means wasting an incredible amount of time solving the wrong problem.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#45

Post by manmal » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:52 AM UTC

flashgordon wrote: post #39

geokon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

out of curiosity, what issues did you see? 20 to one seems kinda low in my experience. At my last deskjob it about 30-50 to 1 and it felt like a good balance. My team and I (~5 people) met with the manager once a week for a couple of hours. Id estimate they had 2-3 meetings a day with other teams. Project direction and blockers were dicussed and adjusted. It felt optimal, enough to get guidance, but they were too bus…

How is a team that is meeting their manager consisting only of 5 people if the manager has 30-50 people reporting into them? I wasn't sure if it was a typo or where you actually advocating for a manager to have 30-50 direct reports?

5 people in one meeting, done 2-3 times per day, for 4 days per week => 40-60 people

Re: Meta Layoffs

#46

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:53 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #30

aestetix wrote: post #7

I just have to point out the irony that a company which believes so much in virtual work that they renamed themselves after the "metaverse" is now thinking to require employees to return to the office.

The other deep irony is that many tech companies ruined the office by forcing open office designs. It was no secret that employees found them difficult places to be productive. And now they wonder why nobody wants to go there.

One counter argument to this take is:

If cube farms or offices with doors are so much better, where are the companies without open-offices and outsized performance financials.

I suspect most employees just aren't that productive for it to matter much.

There is probably some small percentage who are more productive, and even fewer who are much more productive, but their needs are overwhelming by larger business decisions, and fads in management and design.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#47

Post by RomanPushkin » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

The most important point is missing. The reason for Meta layoffs is that metaverse is not getting enough traction. They wasted billions and they blame engineers for WFH? It's nonsense.

Moreover, with multiple rounds of layoffs nobody's gonna join Meta. Why joining? Getting 500k "salary" with a risk of being laid off in the next 6 months and spending the next 6 months looking for a job? It's not 500k, folks. It's a fake 500k carrot for naive bunnies.

I had offer from Meta, and I am so happy that I didn't go there. The company is just unstable, going downwards spiral. They have to pay me a really good sign up bonus with a good vesting schedule so I consider them, maybe, one day.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#48

Post by Dalewyn » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #30

aestetix wrote: post #7

I just have to point out the irony that a company which believes so much in virtual work that they renamed themselves after the "metaverse" is now thinking to require employees to return to the office.

The other deep irony is that many tech companies ruined the office by forcing open office designs. It was no secret that employees found them difficult places to be productive. And now they wonder why nobody wants to go there.

Just give it another 10 to 20 years and the next generation of the workforce will introduce cubicles as a monumental innovation in office design technology.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#49

Post by 0xB31B1B » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

elguyosupremo wrote: post #28

This piece goes from talking about meta layoffs to an indictment of remote work surprisingly quick. I love remote work, because I grew up in a small city with no companies operating in my industry and when covid hit I was able to go full remote, move back home, and be around my friends and family while contributing to my company and to my local economy. The biggest thing that has helped my dev team thrive and be able…

The problem w mob programming is that measured purely on a man-hour cost it sounds extremely stupid and expensive for a company. It has always sounded to me like a hare brained idea that a dev shop came up with to sell more man hours per feature delivered.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#50

Post by JenrHywy » Mon, Mar 20, 2023, 5:55 AM UTC

elguyosupremo wrote: post #28

This piece goes from talking about meta layoffs to an indictment of remote work surprisingly quick. I love remote work, because I grew up in a small city with no companies operating in my industry and when covid hit I was able to go full remote, move back home, and be around my friends and family while contributing to my company and to my local economy. The biggest thing that has helped my dev team thrive and be able…

> mob programming

That sounds... horrendous. I really enjoy "pairing" when chasing down bugs, but doing that when trying to write new features would be nigh-on impossible.