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

71–80 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#71

Post by lotsofpulp »

karamanolev wrote: post #44
tropicaljacket wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe your question is a joke but I assume "impacted" means laid off in this context. Kind of like when people say someone "passed away" to mean they died

Can we please just use "fired", "let go" or even "we separated with"? Impacted is just soft wording taken to a comedic level.

“As of today, we are no longer buying labor from 17 people we previously bought labor from”.

Re: Changes at YC

#72

Post by Ekaros »

So where is the bailout for these impacted people? Wasn't it just recently that YC posted a plea to bailout so that people wouldn't be fired? And then they don't do one themselves?

Re: Changes at YC

#73

Post by xyzelement »

roflyear wrote: post #54
cm2012 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YC took a risk with a new division and then closed it when it didn't work. That's not a "bad look" at all.

It's a bad look if it's "obviously why it didn't work"

To be clear, my grandparent post is about how the two domains are obviously different. That's not the same as "obviously wouldn't work out"

Re: Changes at YC

#74

Post by Kerrick »

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

Maybe they weren’t fired? The way the post was worded has me wondering if they’ll be retrained and have their roles changed to fit YC’s new needs.

Re: Changes at YC

#75

Post by justinator »

Kerrick wrote: post #74
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

Maybe they weren’t fired? The way the post was worded has me wondering if they’ll be retrained and have their roles changed to fit YC’s new needs.

Exactly the point - passive, weak, blameless terms makes it nebulous on what has happened. Just say you want you need to say - you're the captain of the ship.

Re: Changes at YC

#76

Post by pcl »

bradleyjg wrote: post #56
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

Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.

In the US, “laid off” has a pretty substantially different meaning than “fired”.

“Laid off” usually means that the company shut down a group of roles, and the individuals happened to be in those roles and so lost their jobs.

“Fired” usually means that the individual was intentionally let go because of behavior / competence / etc. of the individual, not the group.

Re: Changes at YC

#79

Post by ethanbond »

Ekaros wrote: post #72

So where is the bailout for these impacted people? Wasn't it just recently that YC posted a plea to bailout so that people wouldn't be fired? And then they don't do one themselves?

I'm not necessarily pro-bailout but there's a clear distinction between job losses due to money trapped in a failed institution versus job losses due to a business deciding to eliminate those jobs.
Post reply on HN