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

Riot Games laying off 11%

riotgames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#131

Post by 8n4vidtmkvmk »

xyst wrote: post #122
madrox wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can vary a lot by industry and how much of your identity is wrapped up in your job...or how much prestige the domain after the @ has. I saw it all the time in entertainment. Now that I work at a fintech...not so much.

unless it’s my own company, I’ll never mix personal with work emails. I already know these companies archive and search this shit. Last thing I need is my personal emails ending up in some email dump (ie, epic vs Apple)

I have my own company and still won't mix personal emails in there. Keep em separate. Just for your own sanity but if that's not good enough you could be bought out and they'll want to take your domain.

Buy a personal domain for personal stuff and don't run a business off it.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#132

Post by BizarreByte »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #127
BizarreByte wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all true, but acknowledging the harms caused to lives by layoffs is unpopular with the bootlicking type that's so prominent on HN. People are right to want to see real, impactful consequences for leaders who "take full responsibility" because if they in fact are taking it, they're taking responsibility the bad choices and mismanagement that lead to the layoffs and the consequences of said layoffs. People are…

I think the fed has a lot to do with the layoffs.

Anyone could have reasonably foreseen interest rate increases from historic lows, but of course company leaders got greedy and now those under them have to suffer for it.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#133

Post by mcmcmc »

Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: post #49
mcmcmc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a source for that? They’re a private company, unless you have access to non-public financial info it seems like you’re just making an assumption.

Riot Games is a subsidiary of Tencent.

Okay, and does Tencent publish a P&L for Riot Games? Or are you assuming that if Tencent is profitable that means all of their subsidiaries are profitable? If you read the actual press release you’ll see Riot doubled headcount in the last few years. Highly doubtful their revenue growth kept up with their growing labor costs. Overhiring during the pandemic is a much more likely root cause for layoffs rather than management just trying to juice the profit margin in a market downturn.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#134

Post by mcmcmc »

Jensson wrote: post #114
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. Nicola Tesla was a successful capitalist? Isaac Neuton? Leu Paster? What about the guy that invented penicillin? Without capitalists, progress reaches the masses a bit slower. Without scientists, capitalists would still trade sheep, live in huts, and wipe their ass with tree bark.

Science is public, everyone can read and learn the results if they want. So why are some countries better off than others? The poor ones could just use the science if they wanted to. The answer is their governing and economic systems, and you are much better off in a capitalist democracy than other kinds of countries.

There are some really insidious undertones of racism in this comment. Geography is a much bigger determinant of national economic well-being than whether or not they want to read about science. And blaming citizens for being born in autocratic countries and not immediately implementing a western democracy is also pretty gross.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#135

Post by mcmcmc »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #96
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. Nicola Tesla was a successful capitalist? Isaac Neuton? Leu Paster? What about the guy that invented penicillin? Without capitalists, progress reaches the masses a bit slower. Without scientists, capitalists would still trade sheep, live in huts, and wipe their ass with tree bark.

> I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. I am amazed by the shameless disregard for empirical facts and data and hard historical evidence. I’m not shameless the anti-capitalists are. Here is a book you might be interested in: “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior” by Schoeck That can help explain this very common destructive human…

> ethical pursuit of profits.

There’s the sticking point. Way too many unethical capitalists, and without strong enforcement mechanisms those bad actors simply concentrate market power and actually break the capitalist system you’re so ready to cream your jeans over.

Edit: also after having looked up that book, not sure if some Freudian level psychobabble making sweeping claims about human emotion and motivation is really that great of an argument for unrestrained capitalism.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#136

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

wilg wrote: post #117
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what makes it even worse is just the usage of the word accountable is technically correct but awkward as shit because no one actually uses that word in that manner, they use it in the manner you suggested.

I doubt that. More likely people are just motivated to interpret it negatively because it supports their point if they do.

most people would say on-call or responsible-for, both having vastly different connotations than accountable.

saying accountable isn't wrong per se but it's definitely not the connotations anyone would say on the spot when on-call or responsible-for are vastly more accurate.

in particular, on-call brings with it all the baggage that being on-call requires. responsible-for implies you have a responsibility, it does not imply a negative consequence if you fail to meet that responsibility (it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it either).

accountable implies being held accountable which implies a negative consequence.

saying you're held accountable for a system very strongly implies there will be a negative consequence for failure whereas responsible-for does not.

it's what's technically allowed vs what people actually say.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#138

Post by latchkey »

mhh__ wrote: post #78
WalterBright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peoples' job skills are not interchangeable.

Below a certain IQ sure. The actual answer here is presumably just that it's legally cleaner — that and internal hiring and so on is apparently logistically almost impossible for a lot of companies (organizations accumulate a lot of scar tissue, flexibility is usually the first thing to go)

reading what ben said the other day, google was hire slow, fire never and flexibility was the first thing to go. you're pretty on the money in that regard.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#139

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

acdha wrote: post #119
wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but layoffs are not necessarily sacrifices. layoffs really are necessary sometimes.

Definitely sometimes, but my point was simply that whoever is being let loose is taking the downside. It might help their friends who are still employed but they’re feeling the most immediate downsides and likely will not benefit if it does save the business.

What about the millions of customers. Prices all go up then. Sort of goes against the bussiness priorities, most produce for lowest cost.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#140

Post by WalterBright »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #83
WalterBright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peoples' job skills are not interchangeable.

That’s what training is for. In Britain the investment by companies into workforce training has fallen off a cliff. Then the same companies complain about shortage of skills. Apparently people should finish university with 10 years of work experience, at their own expense.

You can't really run an engineer through a machine shop course and turn him into an expert machinist, and vice versa.

I know how to run machine tools. But turn out precise parts, that eludes me.

People specialize into different skills.

Post reply on HN