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

Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 343 posts

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#131

Post by boppo1 »

SkipperCat wrote: post #11
peterhadlaw wrote: post #2

They discriminate employment based on what school you go to, or at least they did circa 2013

Its mostly done as a way to filter job applications into a smaller set. When Google was the 'hottest' job prospect (many years ago) they needed a way to reduce the set of applicants down to a number where hiring managers could handle the load. Setting criteria such as having an Ivy League degree or a CS degrees with GPA over 3.8 was a logical way to achieve this goal. That being said, if you went to a community colle…

Who is the 'hot' employer now? OpenAI?

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#132

Post by JustLurking2022 »

paxys wrote: post #79
bogtog wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you telling me that one of American capitalism's peaks is basically a worker collective?

Is Google a worker collective just because new employees are thrown a handful of shares?

Depends on who you count as employees - Sergey? Larry?

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#133

Post by paxys »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #92
paxys wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Google a worker collective just because new employees are thrown a handful of shares?

If 80% of Google was employee owned, then it would be.

Plenty of companies are "employee owned" because the founders control the majority of shares. One person or a small group of people – whether they are employees or not – having total decision making power is the opposite of what worker collective means.

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#134

Post by tombert »

kettleballroll wrote: post #53
peterhadlaw wrote: post #2

They discriminate employment based on what school you go to, or at least they did circa 2013

I come from a very small provincial university, but they still reached out to me 2018, so I don't think so. (I bombed their interview and didn't get an offer, though).

In 2016 I was still a dropout and they did an interview with me. I also bombed it.

I have applied about a dozen times since then after getting my degree from WGU and they haven’t gotten back to me; I almost wonder if not putting any college experience on the resume was a blind spot for their filter.

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#136

Post by FrustratedMonky »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #102
paxys wrote: post #87

> The only founder still at the firm is Rob Granieri, but insiders say it is functionally run by roughly 30-40 senior executives in what kinda resembles an incredibly profitable anarchist commune. Or as Jane Street itself puts it: > We operate as a functionally-organized structure consisting of various management and risk committees. Each committee is responsible for directing the overall strategy of the firm and for…

The second definition of "anarchy" according to Google: > the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. Sounds like a perfect fit.

"without political institutions or hierarchical government;"

Think when trying to translate a society to a corporation, then each of the terms must also be translated.

For a 'society' there is a government. And politics is dealing with the government policies, how we come up with rules.

But, if you want to translate to a corporation, you can't just say it doesn't have 'government and politics' because the corporation isn't dealing with the larger society. You need to also scale down the terms,

The CEO and the Hierarchy of bosses, are the 'Government' and 'political institutions' are the departments like HR, Marketing, and between them there are 'politics'.

There is no real 'anarchy' like individuals having freedom to 'just work on what they feel like'.

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#137

Post by sevagh »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #91
yodsanklai wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most companies don't want to hire OCaml and Haskellers Most companies don't even know that these are programming languages. Also don't assume people interested in these languages are "the best". Regarding JS, this is all hearsay, but I think nowadays they hire good profiles (competitive programmers / olympiad winner / top graduates from prestigious schools), ask them hard leetcode questions, and teach them OCaml (w…

I'm not saying people interested in OCaml are the best. I'm saying you don't have to worry about smart people being incapable of understanding OCaml. You got the direction the wrong way around. Ask to introduce OCaml at any company. The first thing is they're worried about is not being able to find people. To which the answer is to train them. But then they're worried some people just won't be able to learn ocaml qui…

I think you equating people that aren't OCaml or Jane Street caliber as "bottom of the bucket" was a touch inflammatory.

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#138

Post by MichaelZuo »

paxys wrote: post #133
MichaelZuo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 80% of Google was employee owned, then it would be.

Plenty of companies are "employee owned" because the founders control the majority of shares. One person or a small group of people – whether they are employees or not – having total decision making power is the opposite of what worker collective means.

Who decided on that definition?

In my books share ownership can be unequal, so long as the bottom rung still have a few shares each.

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#139

Post by paxys »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #138
paxys wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of companies are "employee owned" because the founders control the majority of shares. One person or a small group of people – whether they are employees or not – having total decision making power is the opposite of what worker collective means.

Who decided on that definition? In my books share ownership can be unequal, so long as the bottom rung still have a few shares each.

Anyone can make up their own definition, but there are also some standard ones – e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Re: Takeaways from the Jane Street bond prospectus

#140

Post by amadeuspagel »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #102
paxys wrote: post #87

> The only founder still at the firm is Rob Granieri, but insiders say it is functionally run by roughly 30-40 senior executives in what kinda resembles an incredibly profitable anarchist commune. Or as Jane Street itself puts it: > We operate as a functionally-organized structure consisting of various management and risk committees. Each committee is responsible for directing the overall strategy of the firm and for…

The second definition of "anarchy" according to Google: > the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. Sounds like a perfect fit.

Sure, every corporation is an anarchy then since no one is forced to work there, so it's all voluntary cooperation.
Post reply on HN