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

Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 923 posts

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#161

Post by aprilthird2021 »

nobleach wrote: post #21
shmatt wrote: post #11

if you've ever been through a Meta loop (and their method is to cast an extremely wide net, so chances are you have), you've seen how inefficient their loop can be for long term success 6-7 38* minute interviews, while the interviewee is trying to squeeze in showcasing their skills and experience, the interviewer is obsessed with figuring out a rigid set of pre-determined "signals" Once these candidates actually star…

That wasn't my experience at all. I had a recruiter screen where she asked me some technical questions. I then had a longer discussion, then a code screen, then an arch-deep-dive. The entire process was very professional and EVERY person came off like they really wanted me to succeed. (Sure it's an act but it's a very helpful act when you're in the hot seat) My intervews were in 20202/2021. Perhaps things have change…

If it was the exuberant period of overhiring from around that time, then you're talking about a different company who interviewed you back then

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#162

Post by spicymaki »

HoldOnAMinute wrote: post #114
trjordan wrote: post #20

It's an honest surprise that this isn't spun as "internal AI efficiency gains." They want the efficiency, of course there's AI component, but they're not pre-claiming victory. Neat. It's worth remembering that there's an _actual_ underlying economic problem here. Interest rates are up. AI spending is expensive. A dollar invested in a company needs to do _more_ than it did 5 years ago, relative to sitting in treasury…

Imagine a world where people could just be happy with returns on investments. Even treasury bills. Can't we all just be happy?

If the richest people in the world are chronically unhappy then that indicates that excess wealth does not bring happiness.

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#163

Post by LogicFailsMe »

kartoffelsaft wrote: post #128
adammarples wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, did anything happen in 2020? I'm wracking my brains trying to think of anything.

As the article touches on, it's not just about what happened in 2020, but why it hasn't rebounded. It's been long enough we can't use 2020 as an excuse.

Similarly, I roll my eyes when people still blame Ronald Reagan for the current homeless situation in California. There's been plenty of time to correct that mistake and well???

But honestly, IMO America has become a joyless, directionless dystopia of soma and bread and circuses in the middle of a geopolitical knife fight to define the 21st century and maybe even hit the singularity. I'm not happy with the current management, but it was the same unhappy bunch talked about here that decided by voting or opting not to vote that gave it a second shot. Kinda deserve this, no? If no, I'm all ears for your one weird trick to fix America, go for it!

Yeah I know, downvotes incoming for such heresy. If you don't pick a side, then what are you even doing?

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#164

Post by matchbok »

shimman wrote: post #134
matchbok3 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally not true. Some bets just don't work. If a company tries to enter some new market and fails, they may use a layoff.

"Some bets didn't work so let's destroy lives and cause needless suicides. It wasn't my fault, I was only following orders." - Random Meta VP of Customer Misery.

[dead]

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#165

Post by caconym_ »

matchbok3 wrote: post #120
sdevonoes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are normalising layoffs in companies that are not losing money. If you are a regular employee, this kind of behaviour affects you, but hereyou are saying “it’s alright folks, it’s just business “. Sure thing these kind of layoffs are not illegal, but there must be something else in life than raw corporate behaviour when it comes to work, don’t you think? The other scenario is that Meta doesn’t layoff people. The…

Layoffs mean a company doesn't have productive, profitable work for a set of people. The broader profitability of the entire company is entirely irrelevant. Should employee x subsidize employee y? That's nonsense. Should a company keep someone on payroll and have them do nothing until profit reaches 0?

> Layoffs mean a company doesn't have productive, profitable work for a set of people.

That's only one of many things layoffs can mean. In this case, Meta seems to be laying people off so that it can make a bigger bet on its AI programs (which I assume are deeply unprofitable right now) at the expense of other lines of business.

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#166

Post by oytis »

dboreham wrote: post #98
JeremyNT wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not buying it personally, I think this is the start of a slow unwinding. AI won't replace everybody overnight, but it'll make 10% layoffs year after year a real possibility. Either people are simply made redundant because bots in the hand of a bot wrangler can do much of their work, or people are relatively less efficient than their peers because they refuse to adapt to a world where AI is a force multiplier.

Also doesn't help that nobody can say how many people it needed to develop and maintain software even before AI. Elon declared the emperor had no clothes.

I'd argue Twitter not breaking down after layoffs is good for the industry. It means you can roughly see investment in software as capex - once it's built, it's built.

You still need engineers to innovate though, but industry has no idea what innovation still makes sense except, maybe, AI. That's why everyone is investing in it, there are just not many other places to invest.

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#167

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Analemma_ wrote: post #102
thewebguyd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction, the layoffs will be followed by massive re-hiring overseas in 6 to 18 months. The domestic jobs aren't coming back.

I’m curious why this meme is so sticky. In the early 2000s people were also panicking that all the software jobs were going to India and never coming back. It was so pervasive it made the cover of Wired magazine, but it never happened. Why is this time different?

It "never happened" only in aggregate, which is sometimes irrelevant and always hard to see for an individual employee who's worried about their individual career. IBM had 150,000 US employees in 2000 and 50,000 today.

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#168

Post by kokanee »

mr_toad wrote: post #100
rishabhaiover wrote: post #34

I have a genuine dislike for all Meta products now. With time, their intentions have become much more clear and it was never to bring people closer or whatever.

> With time, their intentions have become much more clear Wasn’t the original intention behind facebook to accumulate a directory of hotties, probably with the aim of bringing them ‘closer’? They pretty much put it on the label; it’s not called personality book.

My theory is that Zuck has profound imposter syndrome due to the public knowledge that his joke of a side project in college went uber-viral and he has had to play CEO dress-up ever since. He has been desperate to prove that he actually has deep technological insight with his big bets on wearables and the metaverse and AI, but the truth is that his entire dynasty is built on people's need to snoop on pictures of their crushes and their exes. I think the company has actually done some impressive things with staying alive via acquisition as facebook has rotted, but he wants to be known as a tech genius, not an M&A suit.

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#169

Post by falcor84 »

trelane wrote: post #146
mr_toad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With time, their intentions have become much more clear Wasn’t the original intention behind facebook to accumulate a directory of hotties, probably with the aim of bringing them ‘closer’? They pretty much put it on the label; it’s not called personality book.

> Wasn’t the original intention behind facebook to accumulate a directory of hotties, probably with the aim of bringing them ‘closer’? Sort of. Wikipedia @ 2: > Mark Zuckerberg built a website called "Facemash" in 2003 while attending Harvard University. The site was comparable to Hot or Not and used photos from online face books, asking users to choose the 'hotter' person". Britannica: > Despite its brief tenure, 45…

While we're doing historical quotes:

"People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks." -Mark Zuckerberg

Re: Meta tells staff it will cut 10% of jobs

#170

Post by Insanity »

ValentineC wrote: post #125
vostrocity wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the quality of US workers has to decline. The quality of workers in lower CoL places like India simply has to increase, and it has. Both of the companies I've worked for have opened India campuses in the past few years.

Hot take: their quality is possibly a reason these people were unable to leave their country in the first place.

Too simplistic of a hot take. People have families and other reasons _not_ to emigrate. I also know people who moved to big tech companies in the states, worked there for a number of years and then went back home to “emerging countries” to be closer to their roots.
Post reply on HN