Live data from Hacker News

Prisma laying off 28% staff

prisma.io

131–140 of 246 posts

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#131
post #126

I defaulted to Prisma for edge apps I'm experimenting with (supabase db). Given it's not possible to connect via TCP to a database and I'm stuck with JS/TS for the edge, I opted for Prisma's data proxy and henceforth Prisma. Using the ORM means I'm tied to this mess of an abstraction, migrations and scripts that require so many workarounds and experimentation to make it worthwhile when your app is not a simple CRUD o…

I'm doing a small project to convert JSON/YAML to SQL here: https://yaml2sql.netlify.app . Please let me know if you see it helpful.

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#132
post #101
post #20

This company is based on an ORM library? How do they make money?

The same company that stopped officially maintaining their golang library when it wasn't getting "the growth we were hoping for". https://github.com/prisma/prisma-client-go/issues/707

Hahaha that's great.

One of the comments there made the excellent point that the lib was still 'early access' which most mature devs wouldn't use for production. Maybe if it was 1.0.0 prod-ready, use would have skyrocketed but Prisma would never know that.

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean something like OKRs+KPIs, sales quotas, revenue targets, budgets…

All these that you mentioned are metrics for measuring responsibility towards the company and its shareholders. I mean metrics for measuring responsibility towards the people , especially the laid-off ones - there seems to be absolutely none of these.

The responsibility companies have towards people are generally defined in (i) the contract of employment, (ii) company policies, and (iii) legislation within the relevant jurisdiction.

Outside of anything defined in these areas a company doesn't have any responsibility towards the people, including those laid off. It's an incredibly good idea to have that clear in your mind when you accept a job.

Many of us are working for, or help lead, much smaller companies who - because they weren't so spendy - are much less likely to need to invoke large scale layoffs during the current economic turmoil (no matter how careful you are, things can still go sideways though).

Nevertheless, many of our companies have been subject to the disruption of companies like Prisma (and plenty of others: Meta, Google, Shopify, and the rest) hoovering up every developer they could get at inflated salaries just because they had plenty of money to spent and a bit of an anti-competitive streak (and I note that many of the layoffs I've read about so far have mostly included staff outside of engineering and product development, so not much has changed on the latter). This has hurt our businesses, set back projects, caused a lot of stress amongst employees who've remained, and of course cost us a huge amount in rehiring.

I can't blame anyone for accepting a role with a 30 - 50% pay increase elsewhere: everyone is under financial pressure, particularly at the moment, and everyone has aspirations for their future (nothing wrong with that). But it's not all upside, and I do wish people would be more careful in assessing possible outcomes - in particular understand what they're signing up for.

When a market changes as much as it has, as rapidly as it has, over the past 3 years - be that employment or any other market - there is always going to be some sort of regression to the mean, and some element of bullwhip effect.

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being laid off and being fired is not the same and this has legal consequences.

The question I asked is why is the word “impacted” suddenly being used everywhere when it never has been for these types events before. It’s so pervasive that you and another commentator just assumed it’s typically used (it never has been until recently) and you overlooked the actual question and decides to explain an obvious thing.

Re-read the post.

It clearly says "we are going to reduce the team size, which will impact 28% of the people".

It's not just saying "We are restructuring and 28% of people will be impacted", it clearly says that they will lose their job.

People answer you off the mark (according to you) because your question is nonsense to begin with.

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#135
I think all these layoffs really come down to haves and have nots. You don’t need prisma, to be completely honest. You do need a lot of other software, otherwise some companies that depend on it cannot operate.

I have tried my best over my short (just six years so far in swe, and a few years in a non tech role) career to be on teams where our work is basically in the top 1-3 annual initiatives. It guarantees I keep my job 99% because I work on the things that make money for the company. It’s not my company, so that’s my terms of employment I set for myself. Don’t work on things that push the envelope too far (moonshot), if things don’t work out you lose as an employee (granted if you’re at a big tech company layoffs don’t really mean much with 3+ month severance packages and cozy amounts of additional support).

If I’m on an employee vesting schedule I’m gonna make sure I win as much as I can.

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#138

If I ever had to layoff a double digit number of employees, I would also layoff myself. I couldn’t in good conscience externalize the impact of my bad decisions on employees whilst leaving myself unaffected.

Huh, likely leaving the rest of the co in a lurch. Nice.

There are multiple ways to transition out as CEO other than just saying “peace, I’m out”

Re: Prisma laying off 28% staff

#139
I'd be interested to know the age (or any other) demographic of HN'ers commenting on posts like these. Lot of people sounding very personally slighted by companies trying to remain profitable (or just in business).
Post reply on HN