151–160 of 403 posts
Ideology apart, Facebook, the product itself is really uninspiring and uninteresting and irrelevant to me and my circle for at least 2 years. Copying TikTok won't save it from becoming irrelevant
Does Facebook spend any sort of money on R&D? I just can't fathom a company that once had a near trillion dollar market cap, not spending any of their resources to try to find their next big revenue stream. They should have been able to pivot to a plan B, (or C,D,E... etc). If you point to their 3d ventures, well, I've never seen it in person, so they are doing a lousy job of marketing it.
Google has been trying to diversify for over a decade. They are still mostly an ads company.
Sad for the employees but a little part of my heart perks up whenever I hear any story of Facebook failing in any way.
As someone who quit FB with a great deal of unvested stock, I've got more skin in the game than most as to the complex question of FB's culture, management, and impact in the world. I paid a lot of fucking money for a very nuanced answer to a very complex question about whether or not I felt I wanted to be there at that time. So, from a position of vastly superior knowledge to the typical HN peanut gallery, I agree t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> do you really think that Facebook would be able to operate at this scale if they didn't have good engineers? They clearly have engineers that are good, but he questions if the engineers are better than the good engineers found at any other run-of-the-mill company. They aren't exactly performing sorcery over there, just solving problems like every other software business.
That’s beyond question and if you are asking it you’re fooling yourself. You can take a look at the output of their engineers as an example (React, Native, Cassandra). We are talking billions. Your run of the mill software company isn’t building this kind of tech. You can hate on Meta all you want. But let’s not deny the facts.
That doesn't mean it's any less impressive of the people who did build all this, but I just don't think we need to compare, we can recognize the accomplishment on its own.
Firing low performers isn't a layoff. Several major companies like Amazon do this every 6-12 months, and it doesn't exactly make the news. While 15% might be extreme (and there's no reason to believe that will be the actual number) I don't think anyone can argue that Facebook has a LOT of fat that they can trim without material impact to any of their projects. Same goes for every other large company (Google for examp…
amazon manager here: it's the same with us. our director gave told us to manage out more people this year to hit our revised headcount targets for next year. there are no layoffs, just larger-than-normal targets for managing out people. I talked with friends across various orgs and the targets seem to range between 10% to 25% for different teams (as opposed to 5% for normal years).
Reading the Amazon horror stories on blind, I never reply to Amazon recruiters. Amazon's hire-to-fire strategy is now widely known
Earlier quoted context omitted.
12 000 people out of 58 000 is “not a big deal”? It’s especially a big deal in the context of Facebook’s decline and bleak outlook. They’ve been outcompeted by TikTok, and their bet on VR looks misguided. Facebook look doomed, and this is a big step in that direction.
On that issue I've never seen a LinkedIn message from a Tiktok recruiter, or heard messages about mass hiring. Anyone know if they operating on a much lower staff count?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The market could only sustain $150,000 a year salaries for grads fresh out of college for so long before someone somewhere along the way ran out of money. It seems a bit arbirtrary to pick high salaries as the reason for it. And to not blame spending billions on unprofitable projects like the metaverse, or having their profits affected by Apple's restrictions on tracking, or the steady decline in user experience. o…
Hiring graduates at $200k is a major part of where the money goes when you’re spending billions on unprofitable software projects.
It's hard to claim that a project failed because its budget was too big.
amazon manager here: it's the same with us. our director gave told us to manage out more people this year to hit our revised headcount targets for next year. there are no layoffs, just larger-than-normal targets for managing out people. I talked with friends across various orgs and the targets seem to range between 10% to 25% for different teams (as opposed to 5% for normal years).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't always mean the same thing, "managing out" could mean firing, but it could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc. To manage them out of the company "by their own choice", which is unfortunately just as bad if not worse.
It could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc. Right - it's actually far worse than outright firing or laying off people. As in, genuinely harmful to people from a psychological (and hence physical) point of view. All so the company can save a few dollars, and hit certain quarterly targets a bit sooner. That's why there's a name…