996 • Hacker News Board

Re: 996

#511

Post by martin-t » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 12:36 PM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #488

martin-t wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that you say that because at some point I started dividing people in my head into what I call builders and redistributors: - Builders produce food, mine resources, build houses/machines, do research, provide essential services, etc. - Redistributors take a cut from builders, by providing a non-essential service like salesmen or assistants who call themselves managers, by getting themselves into a position of po…

> by providing a non-essential service like salesmen... Sorry to break this to you but if you think Sales is non-essential, you don't know anything about startups.

You didn't understand what I wrote.

Of course you need to sell your product but as a builder you can do it yourself. It's not your specialty so you likely will be worse at it than a dedicated person and will have less time for actual building.

The key is that builders can exist without salesmen. But salesmen without builders have nothing to sell.

Re: 996

#512

Post by cyanydeez » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 1:21 PM UTC

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #389

cyanydeez wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think people read too much into this sort of thing. When you have so much money, spending some preparing for a 1/1000000 chance of doom makes total sense, even if you believe we're actually heading for utopia.

Sure thing bob. No way there's nothing better to do but be a prepper.

Re: 996

#513

Post by WJW » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 1:47 PM UTC

martin-t wrote: post #476

vkou wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this division is at the core of inequality Of course it is. You are limited to 168 hours in a week that you can do work. But there is no limit to the hours that other people can work for you.

Now the question is how to get the message out and change how it works. Because this can't be that hard to understand even for the average person.

Do you think this is some revolutionary insight you've stumbled upon? Most people already know this, and yet the system is still the way it is.

Re: 996

#514

Post by ivape » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 2:05 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #334

ivape wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To educate people you just need the internet (communication infrastructure). We can also house and feed everyone if we wanted to. The concept of work has been overblown to the point where it’s everything . I can’t even say war will solve it because war puts everyone to work, which is no different than the status quo. Things are not in place for people to spiritually feel what is actually a good life and world. It may…

> To educate people you just need the internet (communication infrastructure). This is laughably reductive. Certainly the Internet can help people get educated and pop some comfort bubbles, but it's not automatic. Many (most?) humans need personal attention from others to learn. Even fewer place a value on what they're taught, much less learning itself. A significant number of people must have supervision and some pr…

Most children are not educated in school anywhere in the world, historically and currently. How do you want to deal with those facts, because I don’t think you can compare great learning instruction to “no education at all”.

I fully stand by that most people are not educated in school.

Another way of putting is, the number TWO is greater than ZERO, but I’d prefer if we not compare ZERO to anything.

Re: 996

#515

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

ivape wrote: post #514

paulryanrogers wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To educate people you just need the internet (communication infrastructure). This is laughably reductive. Certainly the Internet can help people get educated and pop some comfort bubbles, but it's not automatic. Many (most?) humans need personal attention from others to learn. Even fewer place a value on what they're taught, much less learning itself. A significant number of people must have supervision and some pr…

Most children are not educated in school anywhere in the world, historically and currently. How do you want to deal with those facts, because I don’t think you can compare great learning instruction to “no education at all”. I fully stand by that most people are not educated in school. Another way of putting is, the number TWO is greater than ZERO, but I’d prefer if we not compare ZERO to anything .

> Most children are not educated in school anywhere in the world, historically and currently.

This is quite a bold claim. So I guess girls in Afghanistan are just as educated as those in Norway?

Re: 996

#516

Post by bko » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #506

bko wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you're right. I think every job should be available to every person regardless of the things required from the job, personal circumstance, skillset or anything else. If some job requires more than strictly 9-5 and cannot be done by a paraplegic, visually impaired, neurodivergent individual, the job should just cease to exist, lest we be called some kind of 'ist'.

It's an office job. There is no requirement. Working extreme hours is a betrayal of your fellow workers with families who are put in the impossible position of having to choose between competing against such people or spending time with their family. It's also a betrayal of your future self, because maybe you don't have a partner or a family now , but later if you do you will be in the same position as your coworkers…

> Working extreme hours is a betrayal of your fellow workers with families who are put in the impossible position of having to choose between competing against such people or spending time with their family.

Wow, this is a cartoon level villain. You're working too hard making us look bad! Didn't know there were people that actually thought like this.

Perversion of egalitarianism. Reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator as not to allow for any differences in people. Basically remove free will. Truly dystopian stuff.

Re: 996

#517

Post by ygouzerh » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 3:43 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #11

I don't understand this expectation that employees work more, and stigma if you go home on time, yet we don't have a corresponding stigma for when the amount of money that reaches my account is "only" what we agreed my salary would be.

I got this quote from a great boss, that didn't understood that here in Hong Kong, in traditional companies, employees needs to leave office only after their boss: "Boss like us are paid more, we are expected to work more, no need to wait for me". It was the only one however that thought like that

Re: 996

#518

Post by ygouzerh » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 3:47 PM UTC

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.

I never understood why Huawei is doing it. It seems like a "do it when you are young for the resume and then leave" type of things.

Only young people can support this schedule, how a company like that is expecting senior and experienced people to stay?

Re: 996

#519

Post by pixelatedindex » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 4:09 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #481

pixelatedindex wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the entire mission of the business “finished” after 8 hours? No, but as a rank and file employee you only have access to so much information. The ones who want to work 996 will try to get this but even then that doesn’t mean you’ll get it. At least that’s how it was at a couple of the top companies in China and SEA, and I speak from first hand experience of half a decade. They just want you to jump when they tel…

> It’s a toxic, mostly unrewarding effort I’m impressed that you’ve surveyed everyone to confirm this because surely you wouldn’t cast a value judgment based on your own beliefs? > No, but as a rank and file employee you only have access to so much information But surely if I enjoy spending time at work and thinking about work then I do have that opportunity to continue contributing ideas and effort after 8 hours? I…

> I’m impressed that you’ve surveyed everyone to confirm this because surely you wouldn’t cast a value judgment based on your own beliefs?

I don’t know about “everyone” but my sample size of n=50+ isn’t that small as far as anecdata goes. Have you worked 996 or are you just hypothesizing? If not, why don’t you work at a 996 company if you like it so much and then report back?

I don’t care how much you like your work, there’s a healthy way to do it and there’s an unhealthy way to do it. 996 is unhealthy.

Re: 996

#520

Post by petralithic » Sun, Sep 07, 2025, 4:24 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #494

petralithic wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all startups are venture-backed.

I don't think you answered the question. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this. But I think most people also know that it can be very difficult to pitch investors and that this is exponentially more difficult when you don't have the backing of some ostentatious pedigree.

> this is exponentially more difficult when you don't have the backing of some ostentatious pedigree.

This has not been the case these days, to be honest. While a pedigree helps, the playing field for investment has been much more level than, say, a few decades ago. Harder, sure, but exponentially more so, definitely not.