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

Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

jlericson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 298 posts

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#81

Post by Ekaros »

lvncelot wrote: post #40
palata wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to be a billion dollar company to be important or do great work. And importantly: because you are a billion dollar company doesn't mean you bring good to the world. At all.

I'd even argue that the burden of proof is reversed. There might be billion dollar companies which bring good, but I'll be skeptical of that fact at first.

I would argue that there is plenty of large(above billion dollars) companies that bring net good to world. Manufacturing is good field. Producing things like machinery improves quality of live and productivity.

Not that these often doesn't have negative aspects when they strive for even higher value extraction, looking at something like John Deere. Still it does allow massive efficiency gains in farming.

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#82

Post by p4bl0 »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #7

The author is wrong. The CEO perfectly understands Stack Overflow. What the author of this blog doesn't understand is that the CEO is pursuing a perfectly valid strategy: maximize its short-term gains by squeezing it unsustainably with the latest hype, and take the money, and run. The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy.

> The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy.

Nor is the well-being of the company's employees, or at least the stability of their job and the foreseeability of their future.

It is one more example of a situation where a worker's union fighting for the interest of both the workers and the company (in the sense of the platform/product, not the shareholders) would be to the benefits for the longevity of the business and for the users too.

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#83

Post by lawgimenez »

chx wrote: post #31
JimDabell wrote: post #4

I have a hard time feeling sorry for Stack Overflow. They had most developers in the world visiting frequently. They have detailed information on exactly which languages, libraries, toolchains, and platforms those developers use and their pain points. All of their content is given to them for free by volunteers. All of their moderation is done for them for free by volunteers. The only thing they have to serve is text…

Having a lean and mean company doesn't make for happy investors. The company was finished in 2020 when they raised $85M in a Series E. The fall after that is inevitable. Even the $40M they took in 2015 is a questionable decision for the very reasons you detail. What did they need tens of millions in investments for?

So they could send a single keycap halfway around the world. I still don’t understand why they insisted to send me one.

https://law.gmnz.xyz/2023/06/08/stackoverflow-keycap-reward....

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#84

Post by pasc1878 »

janalsncm wrote: post #3

> In May I wrote about Stack Overflow's business, which lost $42 million over 6 months and had just laid off 10% of its employees. Since then, the company's fiscal year-end results came out. Despite growing revenue, it lost $84 million over the year ending on March 31, 2023. Thank god Wikipedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow. As an end user, they have pretty much the same value proposition: user generated answers to m…

Anyone can edit any answer (unless it is specifically locked which is uncommon)

For new users the edit does have to get approved by 3 other users to give some check on vandalisim.

Thus answers are wikis.

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#85

Post by boredumb »

janalsncm wrote: post #3

> In May I wrote about Stack Overflow's business, which lost $42 million over 6 months and had just laid off 10% of its employees. Since then, the company's fiscal year-end results came out. Despite growing revenue, it lost $84 million over the year ending on March 31, 2023. Thank god Wikipedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow. As an end user, they have pretty much the same value proposition: user generated answers to m…

In a rosy red version of stack overflow yes, in reality it is a place for javascript developers to copy paste answers from. There core value proposition is being destroyed by GPT generating more contextualized copy paste snippets for them.

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#86

Post by bunga-bunga »

mrweasel wrote: post #6
janalsncm wrote: post #3

> In May I wrote about Stack Overflow's business, which lost $42 million over 6 months and had just laid off 10% of its employees. Since then, the company's fiscal year-end results came out. Despite growing revenue, it lost $84 million over the year ending on March 31, 2023. Thank god Wikipedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow. As an end user, they have pretty much the same value proposition: user generated answers to m…

> Not everything needs to be a damn unicorn. More people needs to understand this. It's fine being a small(ish) business that turns a profit and provides a service that's beneficial to society. You don't need to be a billion dollar company to be important or do great work. DHH talked about this 15 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY

> > Not everything needs to be a damn unicorn.

> More people needs to understand this.

I sounds more like neither one of you has had that choice. Most people, given the chance, would rather add a zero to their savings rather than “doing the right thing for society”

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#87

Post by pasc1878 »

nolok wrote: post #20
ygra wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any question could easily include a Reddit-style discussion tab to facilitate discussion. This exists in the form of chat, and extended comment discussions migrate there. That being said, any question that requires extensive discussion is likely not a very good fit for SO because it's probably ambiguous, unclear or otherwise hard to answer exactly.

Chat is instant. Blink and you will miss it. It isn't suited at all for thread discussion where they might be months between additional answers and comments. Or move it to zulip or zulip like so it's at least threaded in a way that works over months. But as is it's just two different purpose tool and cramming one's use case in the other just doesn't fit.

But SO is not meant for discussions.

It is to provide answers (preferably one) to a question.

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#88

Post by ZephyrOhm »

janalsncm wrote: post #3

> In May I wrote about Stack Overflow's business, which lost $42 million over 6 months and had just laid off 10% of its employees. Since then, the company's fiscal year-end results came out. Despite growing revenue, it lost $84 million over the year ending on March 31, 2023. Thank god Wikipedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow. As an end user, they have pretty much the same value proposition: user generated answers to m…

Really hope SO internalizes these suggestions

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#89

Post by p4bl0 »

kortilla wrote: post #62
bloopernova wrote: post #14

If I were the semi benevolent dictator of the world, I'd make a law that said: all middle managers up to the CEO must spend 20% of their time doing entry level work in the company. Same with politicians. If you are insulated from what your company does, or constituents do, you can't effectively wield the power granted to you. Which leads me to an even more unpopular "authoritarian" opinion: the richest people are the…

> There should be no billionaires. This just means, “people shouldn’t be able to own large companies”. You’re going to need strong evidence that relinquishing ownership of any successful company to the government (or whoever you give the absconded shares to) is a way to run a sustainable company. What large country (50m+) has successfully eliminated billionaires without eliminating most of their own economy?

> relinquishing ownership of any successful company to the government

Why the government? Why not collective ownership by workers, and maybe partly to users in applicable cases?

Also, why would the existence of such big companies be an absolute necessity in the first place?

Re: Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow

#90

Post by preommr »

lawgimenez wrote: post #83
chx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a lean and mean company doesn't make for happy investors. The company was finished in 2020 when they raised $85M in a Series E. The fall after that is inevitable. Even the $40M they took in 2015 is a questionable decision for the very reasons you detail. What did they need tens of millions in investments for?

So they could send a single keycap halfway around the world. I still don’t understand why they insisted to send me one. https://law.gmnz.xyz/2023/06/08/stackoverflow-keycap-reward....

Sending a small item like that as a prize for a contest seems reasonable.

The design of that keycap on the other hand is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN