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

341–350 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#341

Post by bobobob420 »

lucb1e wrote: post #279
bobobob420 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can those employees not be staffed to other projects? surely the skillsets are reusable. Something is very fishy about this and the timing.

No no, clearly it is just a coincidence that lay-offs are happening everywhere at the same time. YC must have made a fully independent assessment and decided based on spreadsheets and algorithms that this is the correct business strategy by using past data and developing predictive metrics. Just looking which business unit to cut loose based on cost reductions cannot have been a part of this process.

They did not state the growing economic concerns as reason for layoff like other big companies. They stated a business unit is not valuable enough and they are laying off 17 people. YC is beyond wealthy and successful. They laid off 20 percent of their staff. Not a good look.

Re: Changes at YC

#342

Post by NikolaNovak »

idlewords wrote: post #339
bradrn wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate this passive voice. To be pedantically clear, the first sentence here is not passive! Both clauses there have an explicit subject (‘this’ and ‘we’ respectively) and neither verb (‘means’ and ‘need’) is passivised. I like Geoffrey K. Pullum’s article on what is and isn’t passive: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html (Not that this means the announcement isn’t problematic, mind you. It still…

The parent cited a sentence in the passive voice; why not just leave it be? Why 'pedantically' correct things that aren't wrong?

It's a tricky judgment call and not everybody will receive it the same. But I like learning little tidbits! Crucially, I don't think poster did a "pedantic correction" for the sake of unfairly dismissing the point ; they did it to educate and that always gets credit in my book :)

Re: Changes at YC

#343

Post by pcl »

EngManagerIsMe wrote: post #306

> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. I hate this passive voice. It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature. That it wasn't an active choice by YC, but rather just some eventuality. Most of us understand the necessity of hard decisions. Own the outcomes. It's ok to…

I find the euphemistic use of “impacted” to be more irritating than the passive voice.

“Seventeen of our teammates were laid off today” still suffers from the passive voice, but is much more up-front.

(Plus, presumably many other teammates will be impacted to one degree or another by the departure of these 17.)

Re: Changes at YC

#344

Post by berniedurfee »

musicale wrote: post #332
bradrn wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate this passive voice. To be pedantically clear, the first sentence here is not passive! Both clauses there have an explicit subject (‘this’ and ‘we’ respectively) and neither verb (‘means’ and ‘need’) is passivised. I like Geoffrey K. Pullum’s article on what is and isn’t passive: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html (Not that this means the announcement isn’t problematic, mind you. It still…

Impacted, while passive, seems like a fairly good metaphor for being fired because it calls to mind being hit and possibly crushed to death, as in "The bicyclists were impacted by the truck."

Impaled?

Re: Changes at YC

#345

Post by DonHopkins »

tshaddox wrote: post #262
lcw wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is just a matter of opinion. When something severe happens it's natural to not use the most harsh term to describe the event. It doesn't seems like something malicious. When describing a death many people will say "they are no longer with us" instead of describing the circumstance of death. When talking about traumatic events we as a society have a natural propensity to not use triggering words. There is…

“They are no longer with us” is widely understood and very unlikely to be ambiguous. If you said “they were impacted” I would lodge the same complaint.

HR might have an issue about disclosing private personal information about their embarrassing medical digestive system disorders, and implying they were fired for being full of shit.

https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/what-is-fecal-impa...

Re: Changes at YC

#346

Post by LightBug1 »

EngManagerIsMe wrote: post #306

> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. I hate this passive voice. It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature. That it wasn't an active choice by YC, but rather just some eventuality. Most of us understand the necessity of hard decisions. Own the outcomes. It's ok to…

Agreed. How about:

"We fcked up. Sorry. We really did. We're looking to identify the source of the decision. We'll be placing the person, or group of people, responsible on a performance plan (that will include the leadership team if appropriate). If they make continued similar mistakes, they'll be fired, or their compensation will be impacted. In the mean time, we'll be working hard to help the 17 poor souls who were sacrificed on the alter of this mistake".

Re: Changes at YC

#347

Post by LightBug1 »

berniedurfee wrote: post #344
musicale wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impacted, while passive, seems like a fairly good metaphor for being fired because it calls to mind being hit and possibly crushed to death, as in "The bicyclists were impacted by the truck."

Impaled?

Imploded.

Re: Changes at YC

#348

Post by [deleted] »

EngManagerIsMe wrote: post #306

> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. I hate this passive voice. It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature. That it wasn't an active choice by YC, but rather just some eventuality. Most of us understand the necessity of hard decisions. Own the outcomes. It's ok to…

[deleted]

Re: Changes at YC

#349

Post by DonHopkins »

bink wrote: post #69
bradleyjg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.

Fired -> Let go -> Laid off -> Impacted I'll be curious to see what comes next.

For Sun Microsystems executives in the 90's, it was:

"Promoted to Vice President of Looking for a New Job"

Re: Changes at YC

#350

Post by DonHopkins »

sidlls wrote: post #64
bradleyjg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.

Depends on the circumstances. I associate “fired” with a negative reason (e.g. performance, theft, harassment). “Laid-off” doesn’t carry the same connotation.

They give "layoff packages" but not "firing packages".
Post reply on HN