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

996

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 561 posts

Re: 996

#391

Post by utrack »

unmole wrote: post #49
grantdong wrote: post #18

In China, its birthplace, '996' always seen as practice of failed management. Because for at least half of the 72-hour workweek, most employee will mentally checkout (in Chinese we call this 摸鱼). Although middle managers know their subordinates are inefficient, they still impose working hour KPI on their team, so they can demonstrate their own value to upper management.

I used to work for Huawei where 996 or worse wasn't uncommon. While middle management definitely pushed for extended working hours, I didn't get the impression that anyone viewed it as failed management. If anything, upper management knew exactly what was happening and was encouraging it. Hell, you have the likes of Jack Ma glorifying 996, calling it a blessing.

Not a lot of people know, but the 996 in Alibaba included 2 hour long lunch and sleep break, as well as 1 hour for a dinner at 6 pm.

Re: 996

#392

Post by alchemical_piss »

cyanydeez wrote: post #168
supportengineer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have absolutely zero faith that the current political ruling class will “come to their senses”. All you have to do is observe their current behavior and you will come to the same conclusion. When billionaires show you who they are, believe them the first time. They have not lived through a depression and neither have they lived through any major world wars. They will be curious to see how bad it can get and they be…

The current billionaires seem yo know they're headed to apocalypse since theyre building evil lairs. They know history. The problem is: power is an addiction and like all addictions, some can manage to cope without and others will a absolutely follow a destructive pattern of behavior

> The current billionaires seem yo know they're headed to apocalypse since theyre building evil lairs.

It will be apocalypse for us, but a glorious new age of feudalism for them. Why else would they be building castles and describing ideal societies of feudal oaths.

Every single person in the country, regardless of political affiliation should know them as most dangerous domestic enemy.

Re: 996

#393

Post by flyinglizard »

graemep wrote: post #205
whstl wrote: post #177

996 is just theater for investors. Saw this happening even at YC companies. There was always that stupid expectation of overworking, staying until 9. The reality is that people twiddle thumbs. And the disorganization and micromanagement power plays are enough to negate any additional worked hour. This ranges from pure disorganization in terms of what to build to having 3 hour meetings with the whole fucking company w…

> 996 is just theater for investors. Investors who have not heard of the research into productivity that says long hours have no significant benefit for skilled work? Who have not heard of diminishing returns? Who have no experience of the reality of working long hours themselves?

It's not about that. The first thing any investor wants to know, and almost goes without saying in the venture world, is that the team is committed. 996 puts on the show that everyone's all-in. All things equal, those who work harder will win. Investors won't audit your code, in many cases won't use your product and this is a dumb and simple proxy metric for the kind of work you're putting in. Especially now that AI reset the field and has a ton of startups dashing to the finish line to establish category dominance, investors are the Coliseum crowds that want to see modern day gladiators (their founders and teams) giving it all or die trying.

Re: 996

#394

Post by ponector »

Kapura wrote: post #7
didip wrote: post #3

996 as an employee, especially for companies that don’t offer fast growing stocks, is a super bad deal. 996 for a business owner or top exec at a big company? It’s the norm. And the risk-reward makes sense to them.

[flagged]

Are they making more dog shit decisions than average Joe? Magnitude of the decisions are bigger, of course.

Also what is the bad decision for CEO? To lay off 25% of stuff to boost quarterly profits, boost stock price is not a bad decision if you are a shareholder...

Re: 996

#395

Post by alchemical_piss »

jvanderbot wrote: post #298
skeeter2020 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Most startups fail. so how is it different being a salaried employee at one of these companies? You say they're likely to fail; shouldn't you get the bigger lottery ticket then?

It is different because you collect a salary the whole time and build your resume. Its not like you file an LLC and then receive a check in the mail for two years of whatever you want. For a CEO founder, 996 is necessary to even have a shot at building and fundraising, and even then you're likely to quickly fail. Instead an IC banks on joining a founder who has funding and can get more while you build and collect a r…

From what I’ve heard the startups nowadays are only interested in people who already have a resume.

Re: 996

#396

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

kriops wrote: post #279
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We probably need to rethink how companies are structured - there are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries but are (in theory) dictatorships with no official ability to change course if the one guy who owns the shares does not want to. Who is the ‘demos’ in a company? Who gets a vote ? Will voting really slow things down?

As long as the companies in question aren't monopolies on violence, it's a complete non-issue. So with that in mind, why would any sane person want to impose such an inefficient mechanism to allocate resources and make decisions within a company or corporation? The only good thing about democracy in the context of a state, after all, is that every other alternative is worse. But that is strictly because of the fundam…

You should educate yourself about corporate violence both inside and outside the US - the use of intimidation and murder for strike breaking, the role the Pinkerton agency, the original meaning of "banana republic."

It's tragic - but not accidental - there's no mention of any of this in schools or any public memory of it.

Re: 996

#397

Post by didgetmaster »

analognoise wrote: post #198
didgetmaster wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'tax the rich' crowd loves to quote the top marginal rates from 50 years ago; but did anyone ever really pay those rates? Tax shelters were common in those days with the rich paying accountants and tax attorneys to find ways of avoiding those astronomical rates.

Some people tried to evade the system - that’s why we have helicopters. We can just grab them and bring them to court, no problem. I don’t think “some people didn’t abide the rules” is reason not to make sensible laws.

There is a big difference between tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (completely legal). Many of the tax shelters and loopholes utilized by the rich when top marginal rates exceeded 50% were completely legit.

Re: 996

#399

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n »

wiseowise wrote: post #375
hedora wrote: post #145

All the engineers that I’ve worked with that were doing 12 hour x 6 days ended up being drags on the rest of the team. Their 2am fever dream garbage would hit prod, and then it’d take a full time support person to apologize to customers while two full time engineers wasted a week refactoring production into something that worked. Anyway, I’ve noticed I can only work 6 hours if I write code myself, but can easily hit…

10-4 is great, but that’s only 30 hours a week. Where did you get 40?

10h 4 days / week

Re: 996

#400

Post by 1penny42cents »

throwawayohio wrote: post #346
santiagobasulto wrote: post #303

You're all answering from a very privileged standpoint. I started my career in tech from a small town in Argentina. When broadband was prevalent around the world (2012) I was still working with a dial up connection on a $200 computer. I grew up seeing what poverty and lack of opportunities does to people, and I was determined to break away from that. I got a job at a startup by sheer luck, and it completely changed m…

What does this even mean? You literally say that you were working harder than your coworkers. Was your job under threat or something? This just sounds like an unhealthy case of imposter syndrome. > But let's not gate-keep or be naive enough to understand that some kids will need to put that effort if they want to make a difference. Sure, they'll make a difference for the founders/CEOs of these companies, who will wal…

OP wanted to distance themselves as far from a bad economic environment as they could.

For people early in their careers, working hard is the best way to grow their future earnings and opportunities. They have too few skills, connections, and experience to differentiate otherwise.

Focusing only on the asymmetry between those with and without meaningful equity misses the point.

Not everyone is lucky enough to get equity from day one. The rest of us have (at most) a few critical points in our careers to do well enough such that we get a shot at meaningful equity at some point in the future.

For those from underprivileged backgrounds, they’re lucky to get even one chance in their careers for meaningful growth.

Post reply on HN