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

Waymo Layoffs

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#81

Post by riku_iki »

echelon wrote: post #77
up2isomorphism wrote: post #76

Does it make money? No Does it make you drive your car safely while sleeping ? No Does learn to drive such a hard thing? No Then why do we need this kind of company? I don’t know.

> Then why do we need this kind of company? I don’t know. Why bother doing anything at all with this attitude? Let's freeze in place and wait until the sun dies out. I don't know. To me, Waymo is exciting because it could unlock a next step function of capabilities, patterns, and economics. Everything we take for granted in transportation -- highways, traffic signals, parking, traffic itself -- we could potentially g…

> It's worth a shot, though.

waymo is 14 years old, maybe it is enough for a shot and time to move on something more proven? Like poor billions into smarter public transportation for example.

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#82

Post by riku_iki »

mjr00 wrote: post #55
smcin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translation: "limited city use in [selected] cities" seems to mean: - no driving on freeway with passengers (that alone is a huge limitation. You couldn't get to most major airports (in any sensible time) under that limitation. Add in trucks, rush-hour, ripple congestion, lane-splitting motorcyclists.) But presumably also, Waymo and Cruise don't want to pick an all-out war with human drivers working for Uber. Not yet…

And with all these restrictions on something as simple as intra-city transport, keep in mind the massive investment in autonomous vehicles 5-10 years ago was toward the ultimate goal of replacing humans in long-haul trucking and related logistics. Even if Waymo could place fully autonomous taxis into every city in America, that consolation prize wouldn't nearly make up for the shortfall of not taking over the logisti…

> goal of replacing humans in long-haul trucking and related logistics

I am wondering if it is reasonable goal, what share driver's payroll takes from total logistics expenses(vehicle + maintenance cost, gasoline, last mile logistics: loading/unloading truck and storage, delivering package to final recipient).

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#83

Post by robotburrito »

riku_iki wrote: post #81
echelon wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why do we need this kind of company? I don’t know. Why bother doing anything at all with this attitude? Let's freeze in place and wait until the sun dies out. I don't know. To me, Waymo is exciting because it could unlock a next step function of capabilities, patterns, and economics. Everything we take for granted in transportation -- highways, traffic signals, parking, traffic itself -- we could potentially g…

> It's worth a shot, though. waymo is 14 years old, maybe it is enough for a shot and time to move on something more proven? Like poor billions into smarter public transportation for example.

Agreed. Cars still destroy cities. No matter if they are driven by a human or not.

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#85

Post by flukus »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #43
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine convinced me this was the FB strategy to get people to resign instead of needing to fire them (a costly, legal.minefield). As a founder, the act of paralizying the company to effectively "bleed the fat off the bone" while cost effective, is insane. Because nothing gets done during those low morale months. I refused to believe this could be a valid strategy. Then I was countered with: this org is alre…

> A friend of mine convinced me this was the FB strategy to get people to resign instead of needing to fire them (a costly, legal.minefield). It's a major pet peeve of mine when people's conspiracy theories don't even make sense even if you accept the theory at face value: 1. If you want to fire people for performance or other reasons, it's true that a great time to do it is during layoffs - there doesn't need to be…

> If you want to fire people for performance or other reasons, it's true that a great time to do it is during layoffs

That really depends on the jurisdiction, in Australia and mich of Europe you can't replace someone laid off for a certain amount of time.

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#86

Post by 2c2c2c »

riku_iki wrote: post #81
echelon wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why do we need this kind of company? I don’t know. Why bother doing anything at all with this attitude? Let's freeze in place and wait until the sun dies out. I don't know. To me, Waymo is exciting because it could unlock a next step function of capabilities, patterns, and economics. Everything we take for granted in transportation -- highways, traffic signals, parking, traffic itself -- we could potentially g…

> It's worth a shot, though. waymo is 14 years old, maybe it is enough for a shot and time to move on something more proven? Like poor billions into smarter public transportation for example.

this comment would make sense if there werent a fleet of 100 cruise and 100 waymo sucessfully operating for months in SF now

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#87

Post by jrockway »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #10
duxup wrote: post #5

I can’t imagine three layoffs in a year is great for morale. Is there a reason they chose this sort of trickling layoffs approach?

A friend of mine convinced me this was the FB strategy to get people to resign instead of needing to fire them (a costly, legal.minefield). As a founder, the act of paralizying the company to effectively "bleed the fat off the bone" while cost effective, is insane. Because nothing gets done during those low morale months. I refused to believe this could be a valid strategy. Then I was countered with: this org is alre…

Also if you just fire someone, you get to pick who you fire. If people leave because of low morale, you don't get to pick who leaves. It will probably be those most desirable to the outside market, though, which is exactly the opposite effect you want on your company.

It does hurt to let people go, and I understand why people don't want to put themselves in that position. But to some extent, that's why you get paid the big bucks. If it was all sunshine and rainbows, you'd just do it for free! (I finally canceled my cable last week after 5 months of procrastinating. So don't put me in charge of your Fortune 500. But there's someone that can get the job done, probably. ;)

I am also unsure that laying people off during a high interest rate period makes a lot of sense. The article smugly points out that "other bets" made 200 million while losing 800 million. If you only care that every venture makes money, then you probably won't ever hit the next big thing. Look at ChatGPT vs. Bard, for example, and remind me which company pioneered consumer AI products. Stop investing, and it's all gone in a flash.

Staff that failed to make random idea #32 work might very well make random idea #33 work. If you take a failed project and wait to start assembling a brand new team after you think of random idea #33, you're already years behind. What if your competitor just kept the team and moved right on to random idea #33? You're done! Scary! (But at some point, money doesn't matter, and I think most of the founders / execs at these big companies are more than finished. If they go out with a whimper instead of a bang, it doesn't really change their life. So, sell that stock today I guess!)

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#88

Post by AlbertCory »

dheera wrote: post #6
duxup wrote: post #5

I can’t imagine three layoffs in a year is great for morale. Is there a reason they chose this sort of trickling layoffs approach?

Every time you all drive prices of stocks down, layoffs happen. Think twice before you drive the prices of a stock down again, you're part of the cause. Consider selling at a higher price than you bought the stock for. If you drive stock prices down three times a year, layoffs will happen three times a year. If you drive stock prices up, they'll go on a hiring spree. It's that simple.

Usually I instinctively want to upvote anything that's gotten such a beatdown.

In this case, though, it's deserved. Nobody can "drive the price down." That's a futile pursuit, and would be illegal if it worked.

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#89

Post by dylan604 »

adolph wrote: post #31
bryant wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I imagine the risks from insider threats (selling or dumping secrets etc) would be heightened in this environment. Especially if two layoffs already happened. They'd need to have a bulletproof insider threat program, one they're not laying anyone off from to mitigate the risk of their own team becoming a threat. --- Tldr: once you've had two layoffs back to back, the risk isn't low morale, it's animosity.

Given the long term lack of success of the firm and the rapid incremental success of other tech lineages, what secrets would be worth dumping? Here’s not how do it?

That could actually be valuable information. If the competitor can avoid the costs involved with wasting development time on something that's already known by someone else to not work, that's money that can be spent on a different direction.

Re: Waymo Layoffs

#90

Post by dylan604 »

KittenInABox wrote: post #60
skipkey wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is to say, assuming you are not actively looking for the exit door, why even bother to do your job There’s one reason - from experience, it’s a lot easier to find a job if you are currently employed. So if you think you will likely be a target in round 2 or 3, the rational thing to do is to try to stay employed as long as possible and switch jobs quickly. Also, the severance tends to get worse with each round…

That seems to suggest coasting your job, not really doing it.

Have you never heard someone say something along the lines "I'll keep showing up as long as they keep paying me"?
Post reply on HN