Meta slashes hiring plans, girds for 'fierce' headwinds

Post by DisjointedHunt » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:20 AM UTC

jossclimb wrote: post #54

> "Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here," Zuckerberg said. > "Part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turning up the heat a little bit, is that I think some of you might decide that this place isn't for you, and that self-selection is OK with me," he said." Incredibly stupid on the face of it. Considering a good man…

Post by Dan_Sylveste » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:27 AM UTC

closedloop129 wrote: post #50

phendrenad2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blood in the water. Might be a good time to start a new social network. A simple blue interface that doesn't have all of the clutter and noise of Mybook. We can launch at universities first, invite-only.

How come students don't do this every other year? What's Facebook's lock-in that each generation of students cannot monetize their own social graph?

Post by go_elmo » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:32 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #8

gedy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a Meta-hater, but the tone of this is always destructive when it comes up. It's basically soft layoffs that try and paint those leaving/pushed out as "unmotivated" or "can't keep up with the rest of us". I wish companies would be more honest that they aren't doing well, over hired, etc instead. I kinda get mgmt types thinking this will keep remaining feeling motivated, safe, etc. but it's very phoney to a lot…

I've heard it asserted that your median level of talent doesn't change much with these strategies. But that means you're losing people that you could probably ill afford to lose.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:36 AM UTC

dagw wrote: post #85

d--b wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this read “Let’s ditch those ethical people who get in the way of profit.”? Yes FB is not for me. Not as a worker, not as a customer.

Does this read “Let’s ditch those ethical people who get in the way of profit.”? I read it more as let's ditch those 'lazy' people that don't 'embrace the grind', only want to work 8 hours a day and then just go home.

Post by Dan_Sylveste » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 8:40 AM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #98

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with this seemingly-new use of 'staffers' instead of 'personnel' or 'staff?' 'Staffers' to me always meant personnel in a political context, i.e. White House Staffers or, in a commercial context, recruiters, i.e. people responsible for providing staff. Does anyone else concur? I did check with the dictionary which is telling me that 'staffers' is a synonym for 'staff' but... I've not seen it used that way comm…

You will never beee president You will never beee president So that's one less thing to worry about, one less thing to worry about I imagine that song from Hamilton plays on Zuck’s bidet