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

Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#71

Post by rjdagost »

nirvana wrote: post #46

TL;DR: I have had this experience. Don't try to reason with creepy management. Don't work somewhere that you're not being fairly compensated for (Even if its not cash, it needs to be fair.) They'll never change, and if you let them give you a raw deal, they'll never give you a fair one. I've worked in this situation. No way to know specifically what happened at Airy, but I worked for a company that was almost exactly…

These are good filters to run. Everyone talks up the positives of startups but it is important to look out for the negatives as well (and the negatives were in my experience far nastier than the negatives of working for a big company). I have seen two types of startups: (1) the type started by people who have a very strong vision of the future and need to have the creative freedom to make their vision a reality; (2) those started by control freaks who want their own company because they can't stand to work with other people unless they are calling all the shots. These two archetypes often overlap but ultimately you want to be working for someone whose primary motivation is their vision for the future and not their need to control everything. Of course the real assholes typically won't come right out and tell you that they're assholes but that is what you have to tease out.

One red flag that I overlooked, to my dismay: make sure the founders / executives have a consistent vision about where they want the company to be and how they think they'll get there. If management is not on the same page you are probably walking into a clusterfuck that you'll regret.

Often startups have a sort of script they read from when interviewing employees to give the impression that everything is fantastic. On the surface it will appear that everything is harmonious but you absolutely need to see through the smoke and mirrors to make an informed decision.

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#72

Post by ptiaf »

hongquan wrote: post #60

I'll probably get flamed/negative karma for this, but here goes. I actually know the folks involved so I won't comment on any of the details. Anthony and Andrew are both doing their jobs. How well they are doing it is up to you to decide. I will say that taking one startup's stumble, or even their eventual demise, as a data-point to slam a whole program is pretty harsh. I'm a Mentor for 20 Under 20 and I certainly do…

if you don't think 20 under 20 is an attack to get kids to drop out of college (and not attend in the first place) you've paid no attention to Thiel over the years. He's viciously anti-university due to his opposition to multiculturalism.

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#74

Post by ptiaf »

jfarmer wrote: post #58
jfarmer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, right then, let's all enjoy our Two Minutes Hate. The claims are hardly specific or verifiable, for what it's worth, and I don't think Anthony sees it as his job to determine what "actually happened." What "actually happened" is incredibly boring, most likely. Instead we get a Fox News style report where two sides say contradictory things and we cheer on the one we identify with the most. For example, does Anth…

I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words, though. I'm not equivocating about anything. They're direct, if non-literal, expressions of my opinion. I think the article is lurid and vulgar. I think it's designed to stoke a mob response (cf. earl's comment). I don't think the goal was to uncover "the facts"…

There's nothing to learn from the Jack Nicholson article.

There's a lot to learn when looking at this situation. Andrew hired too many people for his level of funding, treated them poorly, attempted to ensure untraceable communication, and was dishonest to employees in many ways.

And despite all those things, people worked for him because they bought the hype.

This is a warning to think about what you're doing before you sign on. Learn what the conditions are really like, what the expectations really are, and what your future is actually likely to hold.

Sure, some people might look at this and just think 'Andrew is immature, a lousy leader, and an incompetent manager', but that's not the lesson.

I like this because it's a reminder that interviews are two-way conversations, and that employees should pay just as much attention to where they're going to work as employers pay to who they hire.

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#75

Post by ladon86 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #34
yummyfajitas wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that changes things, unless you believe "underqualification" only matters for people with a profit motive.

The difference is that Khan would be underqualified if he were trying to do something innovative, but he's not. He's just making a bridge technology, a collection of mostly mediocre content that's designed to be moderately useful until something better comes along. There's no way a for-profit could get funded if this were their goal, at least not if they were upfront about it. Plus even if it's not the greatest site…

John Resig and Craig Silverstein didn't join Khan Academy to generate "mostly mediocre", "moderately useful" content until something better comes along.

I think it's important, especially with startups, to look to the future rather than to sit around judging the present.

In the beginning, Microsoft were making a limited Altair BASIC that only appealed to a handful of hardcore geeks, but later they had a computer in every office and home. You don't get there if you try to solve the world in step 1.

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#76

Post by ootachi »

derekp7 wrote: post #63
michael_dorfman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misunderstanding the point. The NLRA grants you the right to discuss your wages with your co-workers. Companies are not allowed to prohibit this, and more people should be made aware of their rights under the NLRA.

So if you are making more than you colleague, and he finds out, then your boss has to spend a greater portion of the next pay increase funds to up his pay. Guess who's raise those funds come out of? It doesn't matter what is legal to do, sometimes it is still not a good idea to discuss compensation.

In other words, employees should just accept lower pay for the good of the company?

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#79

Post by Drbble »

biggitybones wrote: post #12
Alex3917 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this says more about entrepreneurs in the education space than it does about the program. For whatever reason this space seems to consistently attract shady and/or underqualified people. I think the reason is that education is an area where you can't really contribute anything of value unless you are well versed in the science. Because of this it's really easy to snow virtually everyone, from investors and th…

I think that's a pretty broad and unfair generalization about entrepreneurs in the education space. It's not exactly a common skillset to be well versed in the science of education and technology, so I won't back down from the unqualified statement. That being said, I've yet to meet these "shady" characters you claim are attracted to the space.

The shadiness comes in whenever a product is sold to government or generally when the person authorizing the payment isn't spending their "own" money, and when it is hard to measure the delivered value of the product. This is common for education and other government-contract work, and also happens in the private sector (for example, corporate bulk IT services shopping)

Re: Big Cuts at Airy Labs, Ex-Employees Blame Management

#80

Post by andrewem »

ptiaf wrote: post #72
hongquan wrote: post #60

I'll probably get flamed/negative karma for this, but here goes. I actually know the folks involved so I won't comment on any of the details. Anthony and Andrew are both doing their jobs. How well they are doing it is up to you to decide. I will say that taking one startup's stumble, or even their eventual demise, as a data-point to slam a whole program is pretty harsh. I'm a Mentor for 20 Under 20 and I certainly do…

if you don't think 20 under 20 is an attack to get kids to drop out of college (and not attend in the first place) you've paid no attention to Thiel over the years. He's viciously anti-university due to his opposition to multiculturalism.

I had never heard multiculturalism mentioned in reference to Thiel (I'm no expert on him), but apparently he co-wrote a book called "The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford". Looks like there were 1996 and 1998 editions with slightly different titles. [0], [1]

[0] http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-Multiculturalism-Politi... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/09459997...

Post reply on HN