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

Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

blog.dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#991

Post by AlexeyBelov »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #947
johnnyanmac wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's the point of being CEO then? I don't know. As you said, it's a waste of energy to wonder about other people and their endeavors. Better to focus on me. And I need the money. CEOs don't. Feels odd to go from "don't spend your energy thinking about other rich people" and then go "but rich people 'want' money" when someone makes a suggestion. >Have the stress of running a company while working for free? Who woul…

>I don't know. [...] And I need the money. CEOs don't. That's some silly delulu shit right there. Imma end this conversation with you right here since you're not arguing in good faith as you've already made up your mind, so it's a waste of my energy and time to continue this any further.

I'm just passing by, but to me your comments were way less productive and interesting in this whole thread.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#992

Post by AlexeyBelov »

latexr wrote: post #855
stonethrowaway wrote: post #648

Next time someone says “gee I’m glad we aren’t anything like Reddit!” I’ll have the replies in this thread to point them to. Keep ‘em coming fellas.

Comparing HN to Reddit is specifically covered by the guidelines, with several links. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=633099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=582513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=…

You're replying to a 3 months old troll account anyway. They won't bother to read it and they don't care to participate in good faith.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#993

Post by anticensor »

adamc wrote: post #667
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are just good people and don't like to do evil things like deleting someone's life memories?

This is a company, so no.

Companies can and sometimes do good things. They are not obligated to be maximally evil against non-shareholders.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#995

Post by anticensor »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #698
pjc50 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company's checking account also belongs to the shareholders, albeit indirectly. The remarkable thing is how readily shareholders will accept narratives which give the CEO very large amounts of compensation. The notorious $50bn is a high mark: https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/06/13/tes... - but that is very much taking value away from shareholders and handing it to the CEO in huge amounts.

It doesn't indirectly belong to share holders, it directly does. But that doesn't change the fact that employee's are paid with money that is generated by the business itself. Stock compensation comes from the wallets of shareholders and is totally disconnected from the operations of the company (although generally proportionate).

Indirectly as in separate legal personhood from the shareholders themselves.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#996

Post by [deleted] »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #435
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that should make that person one of the people on proverbial track That's a satisfying thing to say, but as practical advice it's absolutely terrible . Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them. And that's the question -- what will make the company most likely to be the most successful going forward? Even if…

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem Then what is the problem? Ultimately you’re paid the big bucks for being held responsible. Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. I’m not saying he needs to leave the company but maybe he should take a substantial hit to his pay. He has enough money to put food on the table for many years, unlike the people who are let go where i…

[deleted]

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#997

Post by _DeadFred_ »

jltsiren wrote: post #833
InkCanon wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "exhausted low hanging fruit" model IMO has been wrong since the industrial revolution. The fundamental problem is it's based on the heuristic of fixed demand + technology saturating the demand. It's really the opposite - technology is an ever expanding fractal, and the larger the surface area, the more things are needed. For example compilers are having a huge boom now because hardware is increasingly performanc…

It's easy to find new uses for technology. The hard part is turning the new idea into a commercially viable product. And it's even harder to find a business model that doesn't destroy the product in the long term. The whole is often more than the sum of its parts. A company is not just a bunch of people, but it's also the company culture and the established ways of doing things. It's common that a company can't make…

Dividend buybacks aka stock manipulation. You are saying that it is logic that companies turn from making things to stock manipulation. That is a system that just doesn't work long term. I guess you are saying companies have a life cycle, and once it reaches the stock buyback phase they are basically dieing.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#998

Post by thrownaway561 »

trallnag wrote: post #758
thrownaway561 wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still hate the fact that people can borrow money against a stock. Stock should be sold, period. That is how the market sets a price for stock, through the volume of it being sold and bought. By allowing people to borrow against a stock, let's them get the money for the stock while still holding it. That artificially increases the stock price and value.

Isn't this also the case with mortgages?

Are you talking on the consumer level or the banking level?

On the consumer level, you need to have mortgages as I don't think most people have 500K lying around in order to purchase a home. As such, there needs to be some way for the common person to borrow the money to finance a home. Obviously there is no way to "sell" your mortgage, you can only sell your home. And yes, you can borrow money against your home in the form of a HELOC, but you doing so doesn't affect the price of the home or the market, just what you have to pay off.

Most banks on the other hand, bundle mortgages and sell them on the open market in order to recoup their cost of them rather than servicing the loan. To me this shouldn't be allowed. If a bank wants to sell their mortgage portfolio to another bank or group of bank, that's ok, that doesn't affect the market and is a private transaction. What I have a problem with is them bundling the mortgages and placing that portfolio on the open market as that causing collapse like we saw in 2012.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#999

Post by ironmagma »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #886
ironmagma wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of ignores the core asymmetry of capitalism, that those with the capital are the ones with the power. Nobody can do a background check on a company to see who they laid off or fired before they work there.

> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France Too many focus on equal outcome instead of equal opportuniy.

That quote is one that calls attention to the limits of things that seem like they would lead to "equal opportunity." Maybe it's illegal for a rich person to sleep under a bridge, but then again, why would they want or need to?

A rule applying across the board to everyone doesn't really imply that it provides equal opportunity.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#1000

Post by johnnyanmac »

ironmagma wrote: post #999
johnnyanmac wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France Too many focus on equal outcome instead of equal opportuniy.

That quote is one that calls attention to the limits of things that seem like they would lead to "equal opportunity." Maybe it's illegal for a rich person to sleep under a bridge, but then again, why would they want or need to? A rule applying across the board to everyone doesn't really imply that it provides equal opportunity.

Yeah, you're right. I got my sentence completely backwards. Apologies (way too late to edit).

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Post reply on HN