141–150 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You realize they can get a different job right?
By definition, a capitalist economy has a hard dependency on labor surplus. Remember when the Federal Reserve literally said they were raising interest rates to increase unemployment? That's why.
Sorry to everyone who lost their jobs. It can feel like the end of the world and your worth. But I’ve seen throughout my career people land somewhere better. Someone once wise told me the most important saying in the world is “this too shall pass,” which applies to all things, good and bad.
[flagged]
Lets not pretend they didn't have millions in the gulags....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually believe he put out a 10/10 example of how this should be done. We all know what he meant, he was concise and then reminded you of the mission and that this is all about the mission.
Maybe you can grant him 9/10, but you always have to deduct some points for hiding behind euphemisms.
If you’re laying people off, say it straight and with a backbone. The language is passive, weak and makes it sound like a mere consequence of a slight breeze upon a dainty leaf causing it to gently fall from a tree.
17 people lost their jobs. Likely many of those have families to feed, houses to uphold and bills to pay. In this economy, the same will likely happen to many of us and a statement like the above would feel like a punch to the gut.
The uppercut that follows is:
> we want to acknowledge and express our appreciation for their substantial contributions.
Saying you want to acknowledge and express something is not the same thing as acknowledging and expressing something. A statement would struggle to get more generic than this.
> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc
PG and crew have been very proud of the way they've been able to scale YC. This seems to be one of the first times where YC has failed to scale?
I’m not sure why YC is an example of something that has scaled well. There’s so many companies now in each batch with 95%+ never amounting to much success. It’s not clear how the scale is helping anyone.
The key thing about networks is Metcalfe's law: the power of a network is the square of its nodes. This is also what makes the Internet more and more valuable over time.
Those things together mean scale increases value for founders, and what we've learned is those effects are most potent early.
Just so that it is clear: How does YC define "late stage"? I ask because the opening line is: "YC is known primarily as a place where very early founders create something from nothing" Does this mean that, going forward, startups that start with something need not apply? For example, a product and, say, one or many customers? Some revenue? Or does YC want to focus on the "something from nothing" category?
I am wondering if "impacted" is used because really lots of different things have happened to these 17 team mates. Or if "impacted" = "fired", and "team mates" = "ex-employees".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
where did this come from? The person you are responding to didn't say anything about Soviet workers. Also, having recently visited Cuba, while workers in a Communist society may not worry about layoffs, they still need second jobs in the black market to earn a living wage. I'm far from an expert in the Soviet Union but it seems crazy to use this as an excuse to shill the USSR
> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc