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

Restructuring Announcement

automattic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#231

Post by FireBeyond »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #33
zem wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a lot of companies ask for equipment to be returned due to security concerns, or just on principle

One former employer had this policy, and also refused to provide a way to ship said equipment back. No one was happy with my alternative solution: leaving it at the police station instead.

A former employer said that FedEx shipping info would be attached to my separation email. It was not. I emailed the two people at HR who had been involved in my separation. Three times each. No replies.

I still have the laptop. And a hard copy of the emails.

Also, as an aside, it is ABSURDLY easy to bypass MDM and DEP on a Macbook Pro, even a later M series laptop. Absurdly so (anyone here could do it in about a minute or less, and have a de-MDMed, fully updatable, no weirdness laptop. Theoretically).

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#233

Post by pclmulqdq »

diggan wrote: post #199
pclmulqdq wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably if you as a founder are not driven by a desire to make money and your investors are, you 100% should be ousted. This is the principal-agent problem at work.

> Presumably if you as a founder are not driven by a desire to make money and your investors are, you 100% should be ousted Presumably, the real world is a bit more nuanced than that. There is no reason why you cannot run a company for different motivations than "get as rich as possible" while still accepting investments from people whose sole motivation is "get as rich as possible". While difficult, it is possible t…

What you are describing is exactly the principal-agent problem, and it is a real problem at startups when a founder is truly motivated by something that the investors don't care about. You can run a company with different motivations than your investors, but only so long as you return the goods they want. If they see you not returning the goods and not caring about that fact, they will try to replace you. They will try to do that a lot faster if you demonstrate that you don't care about giving them a return than if you show that you do care.

Conversely, investors can be mission-driven or otherwise aligned with you on something other than "maximize my return," but those investors rarely give you the best price.

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#234

Post by alvah »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #215
alvah wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was questioning the idealism actually. There’s not much to be achieved by wishing the world was a certain way, it’s generally more useful to deal with the world as it is.

What idealism? The person you responded to said they didn't expect things to change unless there were real consequences. Not expecting things to change is the opposite of idealism. But even if they were idealistic, arguing with people for wishing the world was better is a genuinely odd thing. If you followed your beliefs, wouldn't you understand that telling people not to wish for things is pointless? If you actually…

"I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down"

That idealism.

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#235

Post by [deleted] »

itishappy wrote: post #227
copypasterepeat wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An honest question: why is this being downvoted? I thought that downvoting is meant to be used when someone is trolling or bringing the level of discussion down, not when you simply disagree with someone's point. I mean sure, it's stated a bit sarcastically, but my gosh if we're going to downvote every sarcastic comment, that would include a good portion of HN comments.

My read is that the parent is immature and needs to be reminded that "starting at the top" means the people in charge. What does it add to the discussion?

[deleted]

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#236

Post by telotortium »

saghm wrote: post #229
nostrademons wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are publicly traded and subject to lots and lots of checks on corporate governance. The CEO actually didn't want to lay people off (and did a shit-poor job of it when he did). He was getting pressure from the board, who in turn was getting pressure from a lot of activist hedge funds. Small-fry who operate secretly are able to take the long view and enrich themselves off the masses' stupidity. CEOs of a m…

> Small-fry who operate secretly are able to take the long view and enrich themselves off the masses' stupidity. CEOs of a multi-trillion-$ company that is ~10% of the retirement portfolio of every American are not. From my math, you're off by several orders of magnitude, unless somehow we're not talking about Automattic anymore.

He's a Googler, he's talking about Google.

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#237

Post by squiggleblaz »

dylan604 wrote: post #91
munificent wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this really bugs some people but every tech company these days has a demonym for its employees. It doesn't mean that employees have some cultlike adoration for the company. It's just very convenient inside the company to have a single short word to refer to all employees of the business.

> It doesn't mean that employees have some cultlike adoration for the company No, but it does mean that the company wishes that employees had some cult like adoration. The line between proud of the company one works for and being cult like is not rigid, and moves depending on the company

I've never taken it as wish that employees have some cult like adoration, but as a team building exercise. I don't like it, it's cringe, but it's nothing worse than a bit of meaningless cringe. I have heard the theory of the fine line between a CEO and a cult leader, but I've never worked at a company that came anywhere near that fine line. Every CEO I've worked with has known that we're there due to a mutually beneficial agreement.

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#238

Post by chris_wot »

1shooner wrote: post #195
chris_wot wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unbelievably terrible course of action. If you have financial issues, don't try to get out of it by litigation. Only litigate if you absolutely have to, and you have been wronged. Don't do it because you are trying to improve your bottom line.

Yes, i think that's the consensus. But it didn't start with litigation, it started with a 'creative' approach to generating new licensing revenue.

A creative shakedown.

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#239

Post by maeil »

nostrademons wrote: post #216
halfcat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you have no cash on hand and are operating soley off debt?? Bingo

My employer actually has roughly $100B of cash on hand. The issue is that they're a publicly-traded company, with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. If they're investing in an internal product that will make back 1% of the money invested in it over the next couple years, but they could have been investing in Treasury Bills that make back 4.5%, they are committing financial malpractice and will be sued accord…

I'd have hoped someone at Google would know this is a myth.

The idea that choosing a 1% strategic internal investment over a 4.5% T-bill constitutes actionable "financial malpractice" or a breach of fiduciary duty leading to successful lawsuits is incorrect. Courts recognize that running a business requires strategic choices and risk-taking, not just maximizing immediate, risk-free yield. A lawsuit would fail unless plaintiffs could show the decision was tainted by disloyalty, bad faith, or gross negligence in the decision-making process, none of which are implied by simply choosing a lower-yield strategic project.

Hence why no one ever gets sued for this. It doesn't happen. It lives in the minds of HNers and Redditors to provide a very convenient excuse for their employers, or in general companies, making abhorrent decisions purely based on feels and short-term next-quarter profits/stock price, regardless of the negative externalities they inflict on soeciety.

Re: Restructuring Announcement

#240

Post by InsideOutSanta »

alvah wrote: post #234
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What idealism? The person you responded to said they didn't expect things to change unless there were real consequences. Not expecting things to change is the opposite of idealism. But even if they were idealistic, arguing with people for wishing the world was better is a genuinely odd thing. If you followed your beliefs, wouldn't you understand that telling people not to wish for things is pointless? If you actually…

"I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down" That idealism.

It's stating a preference. Having a preference is not idealism because idealism requires some amount of belief that the preference can be achieved.

"I believe I will be a millionaire by age 30" is idealism.

"I won't be a millionaire by age 30 unless I rob a bank, but I should" is not idealism; it's just a factual statement about one's preference for wealth.

And, again, why are you arguing with me at all? If you followed your advice, you'd understand that it is pure idealism to expect me to change my mind. As somebody once said, "There’s not much to be achieved by wishing the world was a certain way; it’s generally more useful to deal with the world as it is."

It's odd to scold people for stating their preferences, and it's even odder to scold them for something you seem to be doing yourself. If you actually believed in the things you advocate for, you would not be in this thread.

Post reply on HN