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

Meta Layoffs

brandur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 282 posts

Re: Meta Layoffs

#131

Post by rmk »

yellowapple wrote: post #5

> > Our early analysis of performance data suggests that engineers who either joined Meta in-person and then transferred to remote or remained in-person performed better on average than people who joined remotely. This analysis also shows that engineers earlier in their career perform better on average when they work in-person with teammates at least three days a week. This requires further study, but our hypothesis…

Why does there need to be a metric? People with management experience can decide these things based on intuition. It's practically impossible to quantify anything in this industry, but 'data-driven decisionmaking' is fetishized to the extreme. Ultimately it just becomes another buzzword and method for people with little or no experience to override people with experience.

Phrasing the whole discussion in terms of 'metrics' to justify the common-sense conclusion that junior people need more direct supervision is clearly sugarcoating it for junior recipients for whom the message is intended.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#132

Post by midoridensha »

pjmlp wrote: post #96
Mike_12345 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't make them worse. Highest market cap on the planet.

It didn't rescued them from insolvency, so who cares.

I wonder how the world would be different if Microsoft had just let them die. Would it be better or worse? Would we all have slate-style smartphones now, or would they have taken much longer to arise?

Re: Meta Layoffs

#133

Post by hintymad »

> A manager writing code would have been an absolutely jaw-dropping ludicrous idea – their function was to engage in high-level planning, manage people by doing 1:1s and participating in the stack ranking process, and they had four layers above them doing the same thing.

My theory is that the companies grew bigger, their management became risk-averse for good or for bad. The logical thing for the management to do, is to insert a layer under them to insulate themselves from unknown risks. As a result, managers were busy planning and aligning and challenging any bottom-up plans but in reality they were just actively avoiding personal risks.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#134

Post by simula67 »

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.

Remote work is very valuable.

It makes the economy more efficient by reducing transportation costs, reducing carbon emissions etc.

It allows companies to hire from locations that they previously thought were unviable.

It helps employees spend less time in traffic and more time with their loved ones.

There may be some negative side-effects, such as making it harder to provide guidance to new hires, holding unmotivated employees accountable etc. But I think these problems should be manageable. Some ways to manage them would be: building more on-boarding resources (videos, documents, etc.), having regular virtual meetings with new hires and status meetings with unmotivated employees etc. It may be a good idea to pair new hires with each other on some projects or require new hires to come to office once in a while.

Ideally, companies should work around the problems with virtual work because remote work has certainly demonstrated its benefits. Let's hope that they will find those ways and improve the work-life situation for many of us.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#135

Post by TurkishPoptart »

How come layoffs are typically only of FTEs and not contractors? Is it because FTEs and contractors are different types of costs like "personnel" as opposed to "project-based resources"?

Re: Meta Layoffs

#136

Post by cidergal »

zmmmmm wrote: post #103
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.

it's a shame to see shallow responses to what was actually quite a nuanced point. The paragraph ended with: > we’re focusing on understanding this further and finding ways to make sure people build the necessary connections to work effectively. In the meantime, I encourage all of you to find more opportunities to work with your colleagues in person So this is not in the least requiring employees to return to the offi…

I think you're wrong here. Reread it, as it implies that remote work is not working "effectively"

Re: Meta Layoffs

#138

Post by cidergal »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #128
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.

it just shows that the management don't have a clue what they're doing. they just fomo into trends.

The term is "cargo cult". But yes this indicates that Meta leadership has no idea what it is doing.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#139

Post by muskmusk »

hintymad wrote: post #133

> A manager writing code would have been an absolutely jaw-dropping ludicrous idea – their function was to engage in high-level planning, manage people by doing 1:1s and participating in the stack ranking process, and they had four layers above them doing the same thing. My theory is that the companies grew bigger, their management became risk-averse for good or for bad. The logical thing for the management to do, is…

This is almost always the prevailing idea. "Management are doing this on purpose".

Dont think that is the case. Its more like we hired a somewhat poor manager, that manager hired yet more poor managers who in turn hired even more poor managers. All of these poor managers finds ways to make themselves appear useful using what they know how to do: endlessly discuss things.

The above is a caricature, but I think it has more than one grain of truth to it.

Re: Meta Layoffs

#140

Post by rmk »

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…

> We have our own take on exactly how we do it, but the gist is that all our software engineers are in a video conference with each other as much as possible and focus on a single task.

This is a pretty fucked up way of working. People can't get anything useful done if there is a mob of people on a zoom call. It's just a talkfest or more likely an opportunity for 1-2 people to dominate the conversation while the other folks tune out.

Even pair programming is a ridiculous waste of time a lot of the time, but this 'mob programming' seems to multiply the waste while achieving nothing much more useful than pairing. At least with pairing, the two people involved are building a relationship.

Post reply on HN