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

Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 432 posts

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#191

Post by vanjajaja1 »

psunavy03 wrote: post #107
lacker wrote: post #73

When I was an engineering manager there, engineering leadership described performance reviews as, in a large well run engineering organization, you'll probably be firing 5-10% of your employees every year for low performance. (Well, "non regrettable attrition", which includes people who quit when they get pipped.) Lower than 5% at scale would be a red flag, not necessarily wrong, you don't want to "stack rank" with a…

Why? Why set an arbitrary number of people who need to be fired as opposed to grading people to a standard? Is your hiring process so flawed that you just accept that you screwed up hiring 5 percent of your people? This smells like the Welchian nonsense that drove GE into the ground.

it makes sense that if average tenure at a company is 3-5 years then some percentage yearly firing will cull people who have 'quiet quit' and havent fully quit yet

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#192

Post by ineedaj0b »

asveikau wrote: post #12
Arainach wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Performance reviews aren't bullshit - it's crucial to have an objective (as objective as possible) system for measuring performance both to reward your high performers and to understand your low performers whether to provide support or to document reasons for firing them. Several kinds of performance management system such as mandatory percentages for each rating level ARE bullshit, but without performance management…

You failed the moment you said objective. Any such system needs to acknowledge right off the bat that these assessments are subjective, subject to human error and re-enforcing bias etc. Otherwise you're just high on your own supply.

false

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#193

Post by blsapologist42 »

ralfd wrote: post #156
lacker wrote: post #73

When I was an engineering manager there, engineering leadership described performance reviews as, in a large well run engineering organization, you'll probably be firing 5-10% of your employees every year for low performance. (Well, "non regrettable attrition", which includes people who quit when they get pipped.) Lower than 5% at scale would be a red flag, not necessarily wrong, you don't want to "stack rank" with a…

I am lukewarm about unions, but if that shit would be the new work norm I would go hard left. Wouldn’t be every coworker a competitor? How do you plan your life or start a family if you are every year 10% likely of being fired or backstabbed?

It's not like the firing is random. "Low performers" get a lot of warnings throughout the year. Most people are average or above so they will be completely unaffected, it's not likely you would drop from 50th percentile to 5th.

On the other hand, do you really want to be stuck working with someone who's not very competent? I think we've all had that experience and it's miserable.

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#195

Post by desertrider12 »

sadjad wrote: post #79
chaosharmonic wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the one he took "personal responsibility" for, while laying off >10000 people and conveniently still having a job for himself?

"But make no mistake. Though they're the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure." ~GB

Imagine if avatar Gavin Belson had done the "metaverse legs" product reveal, with the animation running at 10 frames/second and a few legless avatars in the audience throwing up confetti. It would be almost too ridiculous to put in the show because the show itself would look like it was being cheap with the effects. But Meta had spent $36 billion on the metaverse at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njvp-E8gzqA

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#196

Post by blsapologist42 »

tqi wrote: post #94
lacker wrote: post #73

When I was an engineering manager there, engineering leadership described performance reviews as, in a large well run engineering organization, you'll probably be firing 5-10% of your employees every year for low performance. (Well, "non regrettable attrition", which includes people who quit when they get pipped.) Lower than 5% at scale would be a red flag, not necessarily wrong, you don't want to "stack rank" with a…

Yeah 5% is a very weird number. Why not just stop over hiring?

The goal is to replace that 5% with new hires, resulting in higher average performance. It has nothing to do with total hiring amount.

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#197

Post by int_19h »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #71

I feel like people are missing part of the memo where he said they will backfill all the roles. You can say it's not fair or cruel but this isn't a layoff. They want to churn (maybe for cheaper talent? Maybe for H1-Bs?)

Why would you trust what Zuckerberg says?

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#198

Post by gedpeck »

geodel wrote: post #52
gedpeck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta is embracing free speech while suppressing it!

That's paid speech. Speaking about Meta at large while being paid by it. However if they leave Meta and then speak about Meta I think that would be free speech.

You miss a very important point. In the U.S. freedom of speech specifically refers to limits that the government can impose on stifling speech. It does not apply to Facebook, Meta, Twitter or any other such platform.

My point stands. Meta is suppressing speech while embracing it. It just happens that the suppression is welcomed by the group whose speech is being embraced.

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#199

Post by forty »

ineedaj0b wrote: post #189
forty wrote: post #61

Why do people still have accounts on Twitter and Facebook already? Those reactionary billionaires are clearly offensive to humans and we should collectively tell them to f*ck off

without freespeech we wouldn't have had the gay movement when we did. you should put freespeech above of a lot of things, weigh it much higher than you think and i'm sad to see liberal friends ignorant to US history. on top of that, your premise suggests billionaires should be recalcitrant forces and billionaires should go along with the masses. most of the them made their money1 seeing opportunities no one else did…

Who spoke of having a problem with free speech? I just think they are obvious a*holes and don't want to have anything to do with them, and I'm just wondering why people are still tolerating them when they don't really have to.

Re: Meta announces 5% cuts in preparation for 'intense year'

#200

Post by blsapologist42 »

parasense wrote: post #135
alpha_squared wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels a little off. I think those who stand to financially benefit the most are taking advantage of the opportunity to do so while they can. Getting more specific, I don't buy the argument that we're getting more conservative. Instead, I'm inclined to think that a narrow election victory will lead to extreme measures that will create a significant backlash in the coming years. If you're in a position to exploit…

> Getting more specific, I don't buy the argument that we're getting more conservative. Agreed. I'm pretty sure normal folks never actually shifted left, not as much as the far-left ideology people imagined. Folks would use any plausible excuse to end the insanity progressive politics has caused. Mind you the reverse is also true of ultra conservative politics. The world is elastic in this sense, and we see correctio…

The majority of people are in the center. That's kind of how distributions work.
Post reply on HN