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

Changes at YC

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#281

Post by ptero »

erickhill wrote: post #224

187 comments almost entirely focused on language usage, and at best two to three words. Fascinating.

Clarity and technical honesty are very important in technical work; especially so in a startup: you want people to focus on solving technical issues, not translating corporatese to human.

Plus, if a group tries to hide behind the wording for an inconvenient message what else would it sweep under the rug? YC is usually way better than this, which may be the reason there is so much attention to the wording which reads like the standard PR spin. My 2c.

Re: Changes at YC

#283

Post by pclmulqdq »

herval wrote: post #211
annexrichmond wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind " I was impacted by layoffs", I often see " my position was impacted by layoffs"

To be fair, that's usually accurate - unlike someone getting fired because of their own performance, layoffs are usually untargeted, and include people that were great at their jobs. And let's face it, getting fired is a huge stigma, so it's totally understandable that someone would phrase it like that, as the victim of the situation

It's hard to blame anyone for using the "soft" terms about their own situation, since firing tends to be a very sensitive topic. It's not hard to blame companies for using those same terms, since it comes off as "MBA-ish" and sleazy.

Re: Changes at YC

#284

Post by Zak »

zamnos wrote: post #170
xavdid wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some newspapers are really dreadful about this with regards to people killed/injured by cops. A well-known example from the NYT: > A reporter was hit by a pepper ball on live television by an officer who appeared to be aiming at her https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/new-york-times-twe...

There was one circulating where the newspaper headline stated that "A man with no active warrants was shot by police." Which is just about the most nefarious way to say "an innocent man was shot by police".

Those don't mean the same thing at all, and the headline is weird for any possible set of facts.

The average mass shooter has no active warrants, but most people would consider it correct for the police to shoot him to end his killing spree. The average wanted fugitive, on the other hand is usually arrested without any shooting.

I read the article linked in another comment, and the headline I would give it is "Police kill man while raiding wrong house".

Re: Changes at YC

#285

Post by [deleted] »

lchengify wrote: post #221
djyaz1200 wrote: post #17

I'd be very interested in the specifics of how and why late stage investing is so different that the success of YC in early stages doesn't translate.

Not privy to special information w.r.t. this change, but I can think of a few: 1. Breaking focus / competing on multiple fronts. Lots of firms specialize in A-stage or later. By investing in seed and later rather than just seed, the later stage firms see you as a "competitor" for, rather than a "supplier" of, early stage startups. You have that many more competitive relationships rather than cooperative ones. 2. LP f…

[deleted]

Re: Changes at YC

#286

Post by aikinai »

erickhill wrote: post #224

187 comments almost entirely focused on language usage, and at best two to three words. Fascinating.

Probably because there’s not much new in the layoff story that hasn’t been covered in tens of thousands of comments on previous layoffs. But this is the first time a lot of people have had an outlet to discuss the frustrating linguistic phenomena that have been on display this cycle.

Re: Changes at YC

#287

Post by swatcoder »

300bps wrote: post #217
Kwpolska wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death is inevitable, unexpected, unplanned, usually caused by things beyond human control. Layoffs are a planned thing explicitly done by one human to another in order to increase corporate profits.

Layoffs are often a choice between letting a small percentage go or causing the entire company to go out of business.

Layoffs are a consequence of business decisions by a specific corporate entity.

If someone died in a mining accident and their employer sent their partner a letter saying “It appears they’re no longer with us”, that would not be well-received (to say the least). Euphemisms are only appropriate in the right circumstances.

Re: Changes at YC

#288

Post by gombosg »

nostrademons wrote: post #261
zamnos wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very least, we can agree that " Changes at YC" is burying the lede?

Only if you're not fluent in corporatease. Whenever I see an e-mail entitled "Changes in [some organization]", I assume that one or more of the following is true: 1. The leader is leaving. 2. People are getting laid off. 3. They're exiting a line of business. 4. They sold the company.

Haha, same here, whenever I see some random meeting called "[whatever] chat" being scheduled, like "Engineering chat" or "Quick eng all-hands", you know it's

1. Someone's leaving or is getting fired from the department 2. More people are getting fired

The point is that this, along with "*changes" is always bad news. :D

Re: Changes at YC

#289

Post by fwlr »

erickhill wrote: post #224

187 comments almost entirely focused on language usage, and at best two to three words. Fascinating.

What else in the post is worth debating?

YC made a decision about the value of one of their departments, and HackerNews generally accepts it as given that companies can make these kinds of self-determinations. The reasons for the decision were given. As a result of that decision, 17 people no longer have jobs with YC.

All that’s really left to debate is how YC phrases it. “17 teammates were impacted” is weasellier than the average layoff announcement so it gets the criticism.

As an aside, there seems to be a general but informal understanding that fired means you did something wrong while laid off means you’re alright but the company no longer employs you. Other terms like “impacted” have to be matched to one of these two cases. Probably a lot of benefit for everyone from formalizing this distinction. The military uses “honorable discharge, other than honorable discharge, dishonorable discharge” https://www.zero8hundred.org/types-of-discharges for example.

Re: Changes at YC

#290

Post by Zetice »

riffic wrote: post #78
honkler wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17 jobs died

you'd be speaking about livelihoods then, not lives.

I mean... not even, right? A "livelihood" is one's ability to make money in their career, not specific to an individual job. Surely these highly qualified people will find work elsewhere.

So it's really not worth getting dramatic about. It's sad, but such is life. I wish the best of luck to these folks, but I doubt they're in mourning. I'm sure the YC leadership is helping them figure out next steps as we speak.

Post reply on HN