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

Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#181

Post by scarface74 »

Etheryte wrote: post #133
kungato wrote: post #128

Is it time for SO 2? Lets be real, many articles are out of date with answers being for older versions, the culture is getting worse and the company is looking to cash in on the thing. Could we use a blank slate?

Conceptually, Stack Overflow did something amazing for its time. I agree however that after all these years there are now visible shortcomings in the approach, and simply starting the same thing from scratch wouldn't solve the problems. The primary format of SO is Q&A. Some Q&A is timeless, as in the answer is still relevant today as it was 10 years ago. Some Q&A invalidates quickly and would probably need to be touc…

Some Q&A invalidates quickly and would probably need to be touched up every year or so. How to account for both?

I’ve seen answers regarding my two major areas of interest - AWS and .Net Core being updated by the original authors as new features came out and new versions of the framework are released.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#182

Post by scarface74 »

cvaidya1986 wrote: post #52

Assuming there was enough runway for a rainy day, this could be a great time to invest in some R&D projects that will pay off dividends when the sun starts to shine again.

On a related note, I see big tech still hiring and picking up a lot of the best people who are either laid off or taking a pay cut.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#183

Post by scarface74 »

krzyk wrote: post #100

I don't get it. It is as if Zoom would announcing job cuts "because COVID-19". Stackoverflow is an internet service providing answers to questions, why would they get lower counts of traffic?

It doesn’t matter if the traffic is lower or higher if advertising revenue is down.

Yahoo was struggling as an independent company from the initial dot com bust until it was acquired and it was one of the top ten most visited websites.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#184

Post by scarface74 »

sdepablos wrote: post #74

In this time of uncertainty, wouldn't be more humane to just reduce the salary 15% to everyone?

I agree with the other responses. But to add on, when you do an across the board cut, your best people can find another job leaving only your lower performers at the company.

This is true even during a normal recession. This time it’s different though. The entire job market has collapsed except for big tech and a few other companies.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#185

Post by scarface74 »

echelon wrote: post #131
guardiangod wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of a quote from Jack Mah, the founder of Alibaba, from a few months ago. 在阿里巴巴二十周年时，马云提及未来的一个畅想：“30年以后，我们希望每年向社会推荐输出至少1000名10年以上的阿里人，他们应该参与到社会的建设。” Translation: During Alibaba's 20th anniversary celebration, Jack Mah expressed a wish of his: "Thirty years later, I hope that we at Alibaba can export, with commendation, at least 1000 Alibaba-rians that are >10 years seniority, to society each year, so t…

Wow, so they see employees as replaceable cogs that should be changed regularly. That's incredibly inhuman. Who would ever want to work at such a place? If I build a company, I want it to be so interesting and fulfilling that people never want to leave.

Every big company sees employees as cogs. Most just wont admit it.

But see Netflix. “We are a professional sports team not a family.”

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#186

Post by qes »

GordonS wrote: post #115
wiradikusuma wrote: post #46

I understand they had to do it (I'm sure we—their users—understand), but I can't understand the need for bullshit business-speak. Just say, "Due to circumstances you all familiar with, business is slow, so I have to let go of some people from X department." Putting up bullshit like this is like adding insult to injury. Especially, since their user demographics are mostly people who don't like bullshit.

Fully agree. I've been using SO since it's inception, several years ago. But with the whole moderator thing, the switch to a ridiculous buzzword homepage, and all the damn bullshit corporate speak, my trust in SO is at an all time low. How did it get here from the straight-talking, community-orientated feel it used to have under Spoelsy and friends?

> How did it get here from the straight-talking, community-orientated feel it used to have

The same way as every other community on the Internet that got popular.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#187

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

scarface74 wrote: post #172
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you’re on the CEO career path. What behaviours are you going to exhibit in order to pad your resume for the next position? You don’t really care about the company or the people who work there, you care about the next CEO position that pays more.

I’m just thinking about the big tech companies and which CEOs would think long term. Out of the big 6 tech companies, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix are still run by their founders. Microsoft is not run by a founder, but it’s run by a company man with deep understanding of their culture and market. Apple’s CEO is not really technical, I don’t think he has a clue about what customers want, but at least he’s efficient a…

Apologies for the delayed response: your comment did get me athinkin’.

> He does know his weaknesses and it seems like he defers to his VPs

I reckon, if I ever find myself in the unfortunate position of being in charge of anything that might matter to people in a significant way, either financially or personally, that’d probably be a reasonable way to go about things: defer to your advisors and direct reports.

I mean: that is why they are fucking there.

At the extremes there are outliers who happen to have been in the right place at the right time to have either been a visionary, or a massive cunt, and succeeded.

But, on average, the average leader is fairly fucking average, and would, on average, make better decisions by allowing other, more well-informed, people make decisions for them.

Perhaps. Maybe. Some of the time.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#188

Post by Etheryte »

scarface74 wrote: post #181
Etheryte wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conceptually, Stack Overflow did something amazing for its time. I agree however that after all these years there are now visible shortcomings in the approach, and simply starting the same thing from scratch wouldn't solve the problems. The primary format of SO is Q&A. Some Q&A is timeless, as in the answer is still relevant today as it was 10 years ago. Some Q&A invalidates quickly and would probably need to be touc…

Some Q&A invalidates quickly and would probably need to be touched up every year or so. How to account for both? I’ve seen answers regarding my two major areas of interest - AWS and .Net Core being updated by the original authors as new features came out and new versions of the framework are released.

While this is one approach, I think it's only a partial solution. Stack Overflow has a huge user base and many users who were once active are now either occasional visitors or have moved on completely. I think something akin to a stale vote would work, because trying to organically out-vote an answer that has gathered hundreds of votes over the years but is now out of date doesn't really work. Another alternative is Stack Overflow's "community owned" answers, but those bring another layer of politics into play.

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#190

Post by hkai »

sytelus wrote: post #111
wiradikusuma wrote: post #46

I understand they had to do it (I'm sure we—their users—understand), but I can't understand the need for bullshit business-speak. Just say, "Due to circumstances you all familiar with, business is slow, so I have to let go of some people from X department." Putting up bullshit like this is like adding insult to injury. Especially, since their user demographics are mostly people who don't like bullshit.

When Spolesky brought on this guy, I was shocked. He had no profile or activity on Stackoverflow. He wasn’t even a developer and his resume indicated he was just generic management talking head. Given how much Spolesky emphasis “product person” to be in charge as opposed to white label MBAs, none of that made any sense. I’d to only imagine he was cashing out and part of the deal from investors was to place this guy w…

I think he was very clear about the reasons why he is looking for a new CEO, in his blog post announcing that search.

The investors set a goal and Joel executed it.

Post reply on HN