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

Layoffs at Block

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Layoffs at Block

#551

Post by smileysteve »

com2kid wrote: post #507
hirsin wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Twitter layoffs being used as proof of _anything_ is misguided no matter what you're trying to say. If success is losing half their revenue, reverting to revenue numbers from a decade ago, I gotta know what failure looks like. You might argue that the revenue losses aren't correlated to their headcount changes and probably make a good argument, but I mean... It's not a great one

Everyone predicted twitter would crash and burn within months of the layoffs. It didn't. Anyone who has worked at a large company knows that 1/2 the staff there is stuck keeping the lights on because it is easier to hire a warm body than fix tech debt. I've worked at companies that are literally 10x more effective than other competitors in the market purely due to good engineering practices. Even within large compani…

You and the poster above disagree about the state of Twitter.

Twitter had been a growth company, it was early/missed the market with Vine, but was showing ad growth.

Now, as a private company, backed by the world's richest man, sovreign wealth funds, and banks that have written down their stakes, it has different economics than a tech / growth company.

It's ad revenue is now, not in the ballpark of the fortune 500 or trendy Instagram ads, but somewhere between reddit and sin site markets.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#552

Post by Skunkleton »

abeppu wrote: post #494
mkozlows wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the company, but I think it's fair to say that not every company has a roadmap to infinite growth.

... but you have a staff that can come up with ideas, and now you can say yes to more of them. "Infinite growth" framing is asking a lot, but for most of my career, I've seen teams, departments or companies solicit ideas of what to do next quarter/year/whatever, and really aggressively winnow it down -- in large part b/c there weren't enough people to do it (and we could only afford so many people). And we were _bad_…

My experience is that "asking staff for ideas" does not lead to successful products. Sometimes, sure, but in general it does not.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#553

Post by danpalmer »

fastball wrote: post #536
danpalmer wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nuanced trade-off. It's worse for the company as you said, it may be worse for the employees because some will leave from burnout without severance, those remaining will have more work to do typically. But my point was that what was presented was a false dichotomy and that framing it as such is disingenuous to employees receiving those comms.

It is not a false dichotomy. Reducing headcount via attrition is a subset of "prolonged bleeding", if you've already decided it needs to happen.

I guess you could consider it that, I read "prolonged bleeding" as more smaller layoffs. That's a fair point. Although then I'd say it's still disingenuous to frame it that negatively when many may see it as a better option.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#554

Post by IAmGraydon »

peanuty1 wrote: post #130
krzaG wrote: post #47

It is hard to tell what this company does, but it seems to be involved in bitcoin. Coincidentally we have had a huge drop in bitcoin in the last months. I don't buy anything this weirdo says.

They own Square, Cash App, Afterpay and Jay Z's music streaming service Tidal. They make a decent amount of money from people buying and selling Bitcoin on Cash App but most of their revenue is not related to Bitcoin.

Try again. As another commenter noted:

>in the last 12 months total revenue was ~24 billion of which ~8.5 billion was from the Bitcoin

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001512673/55ca61a...

Re: Layoffs at Block

#555

Post by ulfw »

hirsin wrote: post #321
alephnerd wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. Partially. The first nail in the coffin was the change in assumptions around output. Before 2023, there was an assumption that more bodies means more output. After the massive X/Twitter…

The Twitter layoffs being used as proof of _anything_ is misguided no matter what you're trying to say. If success is losing half their revenue, reverting to revenue numbers from a decade ago, I gotta know what failure looks like. You might argue that the revenue losses aren't correlated to their headcount changes and probably make a good argument, but I mean... It's not a great one

He's a VC now. That's how they think

Re: Layoffs at Block

#556

Post by dakolli »

alephnerd wrote: post #306
tombert wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. No one really "knows" how to grow businesses so the easiest way to spend a lot of money quickly is hiring lots of people, whether or not they are "necessary". Then this free money dries u…

> I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. Partially. The first nail in the coffin was the change in assumptions around output. Before 2023, there was an assumption that more bodies means more output. After the massive X/Twitter…

You are VC. Your opinion literally doesn't matter, you're high on your own supply. I go to lunches and dinners with people like yourself frequently and every VC and finance guy wont stop talking about their idiotic delusions of having an AI workforce (slaves). You people yearn for the days of slavery again, but without humans.

Have fun during the neo-French Revolution Mr. VC, hope you made enough to fill your safe room with treats!

Re: Layoffs at Block

#557

Post by ulfw »

jscheel wrote: post #207

Jack Dorsey has a habit of explosively increasing headcount. Twitter was so overweight that 80% were eliminated when Musk took over. Block's headcount grew from 3,900 to 12,500 in three years during Covid. Block's stock price has also tumbled from ~$275 to ~$54 since 2022. I think that the severance package is incredibly generous, and the willingness to communicate with those affected is admirable. But I also think t…

And twitter hasn't launched one single meaningful anything since.

If your definition of success is 'let's keep the codebase running and make sure servers don't go bust' then yes twitter is doing great with fewer people

Re: Layoffs at Block

#558

Post by triceratops »

svnt wrote: post #429
mixdup wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's already there in a large part of the country. being a swe in SF or NY is way different than being a swe in Birmingham, Alabama or Tampa, Florida or even a truly large city like Houston where you're writing internal software for a bank, or an oil company, or a hospital system. Most software jobs are not sexy startups or working for Netflix

Yeah but why is working for Netflix even sexy? At the end of the day it is almost a telecom.

It's also almost a movie studio.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#559

Post by freshtake »

Which functions? which projects? If you have 10,000 talented engineers and you're choosing to reduce headcount it's because you don't know how to attack the business and drive revenue in a significant way.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#560

Post by Nifty3929 »

abeppu wrote: post #398

> i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. Why are companies seeing it purely in terms of "we can work with a smaller team so we must" and not "my existing team can do so much more"?

There is not always a lot more to do. If your business is making typewriters then what? Or you mine coal that nobody wants to use anymore?

These companies could spin up entirely new lines of business, but why? It's much better for someone else to start that business and hire the best people for it.

There is no reason why businesses must continue growing, or even existing - even if they are run well and profitably. The universe changes, and business come and go to align with that.

Post reply on HN