Live data from Hacker News

Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

teamblind.com

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a lie if you get caught and are in a position to be punished. You cannot do anything against a recruiter, ergo they cannot lie. Or rather, even if they lie they can give as many bad faith explanations or further lies as necessary and there is nothing you can do about it. Unless it is so egregious that you can sue them, in which case you have either a fat settlement or a court that demonstrates that they did in f…

If you can't do anything against them, but they can do many things against you, there's not much hope for a fair agreement/outcome. I don't know what the fix would be, but it sure seems like there's something fundamental that needs fixing to make it so that when a would-be employer and a would-be employee meet to decide if they want to work together they meet on equal ground.

> If you can't do anything against them, but they can do many things against you, there's not much hope for a fair agreement/outcome.

Yeah, I tend to agree. It is depressing, but we are where we are. That said, I might be naive but I think things are fair most of the time. But mostly because people tend to do the right thing, often nudged by laws and regulations and not because they cannot get away with figurative murder, which some employers do.

> I don't know what the fix would be, but it sure seems like there's something fundamental that needs fixing to make it so that when a would-be employer and a would-be employee meet to decide if they want to work together they meet on equal ground.

I am not sure either. A good step would be to increase the bargaining power of the employees, which implies strong trade unions and a working social safety net. Employers have no qualm making informal agreements and coordinating hiring policies. Otherwise employees or would-be employees have intrinsically the lower hand: if they don’t work, they starve but employers don’t lose sleep over a worker’s life.

In an ideal world, this would be unnecessary because a bad employer would soon have trouble finding workers and an equilibrium could get established. We are not in an ideal world, and the equilibrium is unstable.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#192
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very weird that your precise case has to fit a couple of narrow criteria to be protected against discrimination in the US. From a moral perspective, discrimination is discrimination regardless of its grounds. The default position should be that it is illegal. This would avoid endless sterile discussion about whether this or that is a protected class.

So all hiring, all decision-making about people would be presumed illegal, until proven to be based on un protected characteristics? Sounds.. inconvenient? Not how the law generally works?

Well, not really, it just means that grounds for rejection come from inadequacies between the applicants and the role, not because of the recruiter’s prejudice. I know how the law works in the US, that was more or less the point. The fact that it works like that in one country or several does not mean that it is just, moral, or natural. Non-discrimination should be the default state. It’s like a legal system where you would need freedoms to be explicitly granted, which is counter to our common definition of liberty (along the lines of “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”). By narrowing down the definition of illegal discrimination, one gives more power to the people who are already in a position of power and so one keep pushing the status quo away from equal rights.

This is the language in the universal declaration of human right: “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. This is not US law, but the fact that this was written and accepted by the vast majority of the countries on earth at least indicates that we (including nominally the US government) tend to hold that discrimination itself is morally wrong, regardless of whether the reason was put on a list or not. So it is not an unimaginable concept.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#193
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Blind format rewards edgy comments. I don't think anyone would really advocate for lying during the recruiting process.

> I don't think anyone would really advocate for lying during the recruiting process. Why?

Other than questionable ethics, it can lead to immediate termination.

But as always, there's lying and "lying". Saying you quit when you were laid off, I would consider lying. Telling you needed new challenges when in fact your boss was so toxic you wanted to quit the universe, not lying.

In the end, a job interview is a courting dance and you'd want to put your colorful feathers on, but at least they should reflect your reality.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#194
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all hiring, all decision-making about people would be presumed illegal, until proven to be based on un protected characteristics? Sounds.. inconvenient? Not how the law generally works?

Well, not really, it just means that grounds for rejection come from inadequacies between the applicants and the role, not because of the recruiter’s prejudice. I know how the law works in the US, that was more or less the point. The fact that it works like that in one country or several does not mean that it is just, moral, or natural. Non-discrimination should be the default state. It’s like a legal system where yo…

The problem is that 'discrimination' is exactly what you're trying to do in sifting job applicants, for example. Not unduly prejudiced discrimination, but you need to discriminate somehow.

I'm not all that familiar with US law fwiw, but I understand there's a concept of 'protected characteristics' very similar to here in the UK & EU countries. I don't really see that there's any other way of doing it - you have to use something - if you're not allowed anything then you can only pick randomly. (You may as well take the first applicant, except maybe that's not allowed either because it discriminates against slower applicants.)

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#195

Damn, the top comment on the article is about how you need to lie in tech interviews. How far have we fallen if we don't even have enough dignity to walk away from garbage tier companies who can't even put any real effort into hiring. Lying is not a solution, letting companies like Databricks die a slow painful death because they create toxic environments and all their programmers keep quitting is the solution.

> is about how you need to lie in tech interviews. Doing recruiting rounds as a candidate in the early 00's taught me that you have to lie in interviews. All the questions were "give an example of a time when ... " - everyone displayed leadership when they were captain of the national championship winning football team, and overcame adversity when they climbed the three mountains taller than everest in the same day.…

Good one, House. https://youtu.be/HgXpvzt7Qg8?t=108

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#196
> I did very well

This is the author's perspective and it's not necessary true. There's a tricky part in hiring process on the employer side, and it is enormously high cost of false positive. If I hire a wrong person, company should spend a tremendous trove of resources before the mistake could be corrected. Thus it is intuitive to just put a "no hire" resolution in case of any doubt.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#197
AFAIK it's rare for a company to actually share reasons for rejecting a candidate. The main reason for this is probably compliance issues. Is there any reason to believe this post is actually true? Startups tend to be more forthcoming in rejection reasons but I would be surprised if Databricks is still in such a laid back mode.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#198
post #16

Fun fact: in some jurisdictions such as New York and DC, this is illegal. It's called "discrimination against the unemployed". Check the laws of your state, the state you would work in, and the state the company is headquartered in to see if this may apply to you.

While it's nice to know these laws exist, what would you really do with it? The company proved it has a terrible culture. Doesn't seem worth it to fight for a job with them.

If you have financial obligations, sometimes you have to take the job that's available.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#199
In my opinion, Databricks' layoffs are not necessarily a "red flag." Changes in a company's structure are common in the technology industry and can be a strategic move to improve efficiency and performance. It's important to carefully evaluate the reasons behind the layoffs before jumping to conclusions about the company's health and direction.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#200
post #79

Not only is Databricks a deplorable company when it comes to HR, but their product is terrible. I really don't get what it's all about. Much rather spin up my choice of a python notebook, have my own underlying data storage, etc. I really don't understand how they got so big so quickly? Was it all hype? VCs helping close deals?

it's simple: Many companies are on Azure for some reason. (mainly because of preexisting microsoft contracts, and because its so tightly coupled with office that if you want office at the enterprise level, you always need a little of Azure)

Now, those companies need data infrastructure. Azure ML studio is horrible. Azure data factory is somewhat okay'ish, but far from ideal. Azure Synapse is a steaming pile of junk that doesn't seem to improve. Azure data lake is kinda functional as a data lake, but lacks any decent ways to analyze that data.

Spinning up jupyter notebooks is not something most IT teams understand, they want a managed service.

As far as I know, Databricks is then the only solution offered by Microsoft. That's why they get such a high adoption rate. Not because of merit, but because they are the only somewhat acceptable solution on Azure. Good enough to just work. Not good enough to gain a competitive data advantage.

I hate what the world has come to, but sadly IT procurement has too much influence and CTO's dont understand the modern world enough. They just care about the big Microsoft contract, because it makes them look good (look at all these savings!)

If Microsoft would showcase Teradata or Dataiku or a bit of Snowflake, all of those run through the azure marketplace anyway,... we would be better off. But consultants and premium partners naturally only care about Databricks

Post reply on HN