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

291–300 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#291

Post by kokanee »

cardosof wrote: post #266
voz_ wrote: post #46

> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc

I, too, prefer that companies spoke in direct, plain terms, without PR shenanigans. Does anyone know why do they do this, though? Is it to de-risk potential lawsuits or do they believe people prefer that way ("sounds professional")?

My sense is that in the particular case of layoffs, companies are hesitant to actually use the phrase "laid off" because it triggers a sense of implicit shame in those affected. There is definitely an unspoken assumption that folks who get laid off are underperformers, and the extent to which we talk about how untrue that is (see: LinkedIn) shows how pervasive the assumption is.

Re: Changes at YC

#292

Post by maximinus_thrax »

khazhoux wrote: post #274
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't compare death with layoffs. One if an inevitable but tragic part of life the other is an inevitable but tragic part of keeping the shareholders happy.

I think the whole notion of companies doing things "for the shareholders" is vastly overblown. Doesn't it make perfect sense on its own that YC realized the late-stage game was not working out, and that they were not going to be able to use those people effectively on other work?

> I think the whole notion of companies doing things "for the shareholders" is vastly overblown.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't share yours. Everything makes sense with the proper framing. My guess is that this has more to do with perception than with actual business needs. I can try as well: Doesn't it make perfect sense that in the current context it's very easy to justify cutting costs which if done during normal times would signal trouble/mismanagement?

Re: Changes at YC

#293

Post by dvt »

Zetice wrote: post #251
dvt wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out Uh, that's what wealthy people do -- they give money to other people to make them even more money. This was so transparently a billionaire bailout (Gary Tan & David Sacks were literally on a press tour), I fail to understand how people are so mesmerized by the shell game here.

...that's not what "bailout" means, a "bailout" can only happen before a bank collapses; SVB already collapsed, it cannot be bailed out, definitionally. It's not a shell game, it's a fundamentally different situation where real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected. Further, there is not financial assistance in the form of "free money"; at best what will happen are loans to cover the d…

> real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected

Hard disagree on this. Startups die literally every day, not to mention that we just had tens of thousands of layoffs by big tech companies. In my view, this was a targeted bailout, meant to primarily protect the investment (into startups) of many Silicon Valley investment firms.

> only then will investors be given a chance to recoup some of their investment.

You're still harping on this "investors" thing, which is not even remotely related to my point. You can call me ignorant all day, but my point has zero to do with folks that bought SVB stock, and I'm not fully convinced you actually grasp that.

Re: Changes at YC

#294

Post by mschuster91 »

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.

I'm willing to accept this for a company that has verifiable issues that are not just accounting fuckeries (aka owners pulling cash out of the company by having a 2nd company that nominally owns the office building, patent licenses, overseas shell companies): consistent losses, lack of cash, you get the idea.

But for companies pulling in profits to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars in profit?! Their leadership should be terminated before even the lowest performing employee instead of getting paid bonuses for ruining the lives of thousands of people who made their bonuses possible by putting in the work.

Re: Changes at YC

#295

Post by [deleted] »

fairity wrote: post #270

I can think of a few reasons why YC would make this decision without admitting so publicly: 1) Too much negative signaling risk when they don't make follow-on investments 2) Negative returns given the recent downturn 3) The increasing business need to make non-founder-friendly changes in late stage companies (e.g. replacing CEO) 4) Anu/Ali deciding to leave first to start their own fund I wonder if any of these reaso…

[deleted]

Re: Changes at YC

#296

Post by 71a54xd »

This is interesting, specifically relative to what their definition of "growth stage" is. Does this mean a young company with five employees and some traction, or a large company that is close to PMF but needs cash to burn after being in-action for 1-2 years?

Re: Changes at YC

#297

Post by eyelidlessness »

ak_111 wrote: post #237
voz_ wrote: post #46

> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc

This comment comes across as a silly nitpick given the sober content of the post, but I think it is completely fair given Paul Graham's many writings and tweets on the virtues of writing clearly and his hatred of what I call corporatese.

I don’t think it comes across as a silly nitpick, and I’ve read very little PG has written. It’s useful to identify how phrasing and framing of communication can be used to manipulate how that communication is received, regardless of who is communicating. And I think the same observation would have been made if this were a post about any other organization.

It is laudable that this observation was very close to the top when I clicked to see the comments. I’d be surprised if this critique gets buried by HN moderation, and cautiously hopeful it won’t get buried by folks biased to defend YC &co.

But the exact same language from any other source would be examined exactly the same way, and for very good reason.

Re: Changes at YC

#298

Post by labster »

voz_ wrote: post #46

> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc

Just read it in a dental sense: seventeen of our molars were impacted today, and had to be extracted.

Re: Changes at YC

#299

Post by NikolaNovak »

tjohns wrote: post #276
NikolaNovak wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one I actually understand. Calling somebody innocent is a very strong and contextual / scoped statement, and ultimately that's what the courts take their time to do (and even they I think kinda stop shy? I don't know if acquitted is the same as innocent. I feel it's more "not proven guilty").

In the US, we have the presumption of innocence. Until a court says you're guilty, you're innocent. Most modern countries consider this a fundamental right.

In the US, what happens a if a newspaper calls someone innocent, who is then proven guilty?

That was a super high horse you rapidly jumped on, but where I'm going is, it may not be a risk reputable journalism takes lightly.

"No outstanding warrants" will have been true at the time whatever is uncovered later. "They shot a presumed innocent" is probably safe but meaningless. "They shot an innocent person" - what happens if the person is then found super guilty? And innocent of what - what if somebody says "they were clearly in the video driving without their seatbelt" or "they had expired license plate"? USA has a lovely constitution yes, but also a nicely profitable legal industry.

Put the moral notion aside: In the USA, I don't think it's an easy risk to take, and clearly newspapers agree.

Re: Changes at YC

#300

Post by [deleted] »

fgimenez wrote: post #202
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.

My pithy observation - Early stage investors are fantastic at extrapolating from minimal data points. Late stage investors are fantastic at extrapolating from many noisy data points. They screw up because the methods for each of their extrapolation functions are entirely different, so much so that they manifest as cultural differences in investment firms.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN