701–710 of 923 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have brain poisoning from reading too much slop online. >But I doubt the low-growth, low-innovation world of Europe will make the next iPhone, AI, or chip. >chip Do you realize that the cutting edge in chip technology is a Dutch company
No idea what Dutch company you’re alluding to. FWIW my guess for cutting edge chip tech is TSMC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When is it ok to lay people off?
Laying off 10% of your workforce at a company this size means someone high up has been making some pretty significant mistakes. So the answer is, when an executive is held accountable for disrupting this many people's lives. When they claw back bonuses they have probably received for hitting or setting those previous hiring targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I think "1 employee can do the work of 3 now" still hasn't actually been demonstrated
Pretty sure it has for coding
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta basically "pivoted." The core business is still meta ads, but Zuck had decided they needed big investment into a new business for future-proofing, growth or whatnot. That business was initially the meta stuff. Now it is Ai. That's a pivot.
Meta is fundamentally a media company and they're using AI towards that end. They don't seem to be productizing their tech beyond that in the medium term.
You were soooooo close.
Meta is fundamentally a targeted advertising company, not a media company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you hire a house cleaner, and the house cleaner doesn't do a good job, would you fire yourself from the house? What repercussions will you personally suffer?
Are you implying the 10% being fired are all bad workers? What if the house cleaner was not the problem here?
The cleaner isn't the problem with respect to the cleaning itself, but what about the culpability in exploiting someone who has lost their mind? In this case Zuckerberg is willing to accept the exploitation that occurred in the past simply for what it is, but now that he has had a moment of clarity he also cannot let it continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My experience working at Big tech companies is that people with roles like “agile coaches", "technical project managers", UX testers add questionable value. "Agile" can go and die in a hellfire for all I care. But good technical project managers aka "bridges between the higher-up beancounters and the workers" are worth their weight in gold.
>But good technical project managers aka "bridges between the higher-up beancounters and the workers" are worth their weight in gold. Yeah but it's not easy do distinguish those from the snake oil salesmen who are just good at smooth talking during the interviews.
This is interesting because it's a case of "AI taking jobs" but not in the way people normally mean; these massive layoffs are happening not because AI is doing the work they used to do but because capex is sucking all of the operating money out of everywhere. The companies may be forced to replace some of the laid-off employees with AI (as far as possible) but that's an effect not a cause.
In other words: Nothing has changed. Finance is destroying the real economy in search for "optimization" because business value doesn't neatly fit into an excel sheet cell. All these layoffs have been done because of AI washing right from the start.
That said, AI isn't helping.
Let's be honest, Meta over hired. Big time. If anyone ever interviewed a few Meta engineers, he would easily see that a large percentage of them had really small, and sometimes bullshit scopes. As a result, such engineers couldn't articulate what they do in Meta, couldn't deep dive into their own tech stacks, nor could solve common-sense design questions when they just deviated a bit from those popular interview ques…
People bring up "overhiring" every single time. We've had like 3 years of these massive layoffs already. How many "corrections" do they need? I'm beginning to feel like the "overhiring" line is a concerted campaign
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine the productivity gains if they just spent $150B on booze and cake for employees!
That is one of my huge complaints about the current levels of AI investments. You can do pretty much anything you want if you got $150B to spend, and then you go burn it on being uncompetitive in the AI space. Then you have the $80B Metas Reality Labs spend on a failed virtual reality and a pair of Ray-Bans. It's not like Meta has nothing to show for the money it spend, but it seems like they could have spend that mo…
Mark is just looking for the next fad.
Let's be honest, Meta over hired. Big time. If anyone ever interviewed a few Meta engineers, he would easily see that a large percentage of them had really small, and sometimes bullshit scopes. As a result, such engineers couldn't articulate what they do in Meta, couldn't deep dive into their own tech stacks, nor could solve common-sense design questions when they just deviated a bit from those popular interview ques…
People bring up "overhiring" every single time. We've had like 3 years of these massive layoffs already. How many "corrections" do they need? I'm beginning to feel like the "overhiring" line is a concerted campaign