Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla lays off 70

techcrunch.com

941–950 of 962 posts

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not offended by that obit. Let me break this down for you. This isn't about you and an obituary or eulogy isn't something written to the dead: It's written to their family, their coworkers and friends, and for those who may have never really known the deceased. No leader should write in such a way that would insult the families of the dead and their belief systems. Reminder: This is a non-family relative of th…

I think I won't convince you about my capacity for empathy in this context, but I guess I'll just say that my opinion here isn't a lack of empathy for the guy or his family. I'm not confused that reading such things could hurt. I have come to a place in my life where I crave more honesty all around, and I'm willing to pay for it with emotional pain. And it's not just a selfish sort of myopia--like, I can imagine you…

As an exercise I want you to go back, read what you wrote on this topic and count the I's. Then read my response which I will now use neutral language in.

This nor my last post was written to suggest autistic perception, but rather that not everyone thinks from others' different perspectives naturally (wherever they sit on the spectrum). I will indulge in your stated interest to receive honesty. You don't write like someone that thinks by putting themselves in other's shoes and thinking through the lens of their values. Rather, the internal value systems you have becomes a framework to apply externally in your life. 'I believe' 'I think' 'I agree', checks upon those value systems you have logically/emotionally and your writing and actions are built upon that. Those with this line of thought seek to change the world to fit their value systems, not harmonize the chaos of different value systems by speaking inside them.

As one interested in emotional intelligence, I'm telling you this because it might actually help you, but more importantly help those you're trying to help. For what it's worth most of the people I chose to work with are more like you and don't think through others' value systems naturally. It 'feels' more authentic to see people's clear and consistent values than try to peg down the chameleons that constantly lens through systems.

>Actually I believe that we as a society would better if we set the baseline somewhere closer to what she wrote than to perfunctory respect and polite platitudes. And I believe the various negative emotions that would come with that new baseline are both real costs dearly paid AND worth paying all the same. I know my perspective on this isn't popular.

You're alive, you can write posts in response to criticism. The deceased cannot. An obit isn't a performance review of a person written while they are alive; it's a final send-off written to tell a story about someone's life and comfort the living.

I understand why you'd believe it's ok to have things written like this about you (this is directed to you) in your obituary, but you should be aware that it may cause pain to your friends and relatives, that they won't understand why people spoke of you in these ways. Everyone makes mistakes and values can change as we grow older and move between social groups. The 'you' that you see yourself as-is always going to be different from how others see you. It will never match your ideal. This is an inescapable fact.

The issue at hand is that you, whether or not you're consciously aware, are seeking to project your own value system onto those that won't share that value system. I'm not asking you to share in their values or even to fully understand them. I'm asking you to acknowledge their presence and understand that an obit isn't written to a party of one.

Consider this example: People feel pain and sadness after their relatives die. Even if Mitchell wanted to say she didn't get along with Gerv, she could have made her narrative something that would have respected his values that didn't match her own. There's a way to say something like: 'We did not always agree on matters, but Gerv's dedication always impressed me.' (Which is sort of what the totality of her post could be taken as) Rather than inform his family that he caused distress inside the organization, she could still try the express the totality of Gerv by not showcasing the pain he's caused.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#942
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservative != bigot/anti-gay. We do have a brood of reactionaries attempting to blur that distinction like they always do, but there are plenty of conservatives who do not share that particular bias.

Bigot: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. ( http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/bigot ) I have met plenty of bigots on both sides of politics. But immediately trying to call me out on labeling this man a conservative by saying he is actually a bigot is, ironically, bigotry itself.

__jal's comment was ambiguous. I think they may have been saying the opposite: that not all conservatives are bigots, and that it's unfair on conservatives to brand bigotry as conservatism.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#943
post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some connection you would like to disclose? You're not allowed to post insinuations like that to HN. It's nearly always imaginary and poisons discussion badly. Please read the rules and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think the connection the parent was asking was between the 500M$ and Mitchell Baker

If that's the case, I misread and I'm sorry. Moderation is guesswork done in haste, so that does happen sometimes.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#944
post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22060372 and marked it off-topic.

My comment was neither, and I provided three sources below.

What you provide below doesn't any substance above. Substance needs to be front-loaded.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#945
post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume he meant "absolutely it really would be that underfunded", because that is true. Elsewhere in these comments people have estimated that Google pays at least 1000 people to work on Chrome. That's about the size of all of Mozilla, and a lot of those Mozilla staff are necessarily not working directly on Firefox --- you need HR, accountants, marketing, etc. Also, Google pays its developers significantly more tha…

I've not seen any estimates that Google employs 1000 devs to work on Chrome. Only that in the more than decade long history of Chromium 1000 Google devs have worked on it in total.

I don't want to dig through hundreds of comments again --- but as someone who worked on Firefox for 15 years and knows a bunch of Chrome people, I believe those estimates.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#946
post #640

I was at Mozilla for a while and it was a two-class system. The execs flew first class, stayed in fancy hotels, and had very expensive dinners and retreats - sometimes in the high five-figures. This is not even included in comp. One time, the CFO sent out a missive urging everyone to stay in AirBnB to save money and the execs (literally the following week) booked $500/night rooms at a hotel in NYC. I think the moment…

Two days back I wrote this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22034293 I doubt if this is just with Mozilla. Things like these are come as job perks when you enter management. And this one of the reasons why you must aspire to be a manager and not a programmer on the longer run. >>The execs flew first class, stayed in fancy hotels, and had very expensive dinners and retreats - sometimes in the high five-fi…

> As in Indian who worked in the US for a while, I've even seen Green cards handed to manager's pets like candies.

I wasn't aware greencards were something managers could hand out.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bottom line: making an unprovoked publication indicating that the deceased's efforts caused damage to the organization as a whole is not a decent thing to do. And what if the deceased's actions DID cause damage (e.g. Brendan Eich and Gervase Markham)? Wouldn't that count as provocation? Just because you happen to agree with their views on morality doesn't mean that their contempt for their fellow coworkers should be…

>their contempt for their fellow coworkers should be whitewashed. // If they violated work regulations then they should have been disciplined, did they, were they? Do you mean contempt for the people or was it for their views; how was it different to your contempt for them? Refraining from heavily and repeatedly deriding someone in an obituary doesn't mean you're whitewashing anything.

If they violated work regulations then they should have been disciplined, did they, were they?

Perhaps the optics of disciplining a terminally ill employee were judged to be worse than keeping him around.

how was it different to your contempt for them?

How is acknowledging their abusive behavior contempt? Hate the message not the person.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't make the laws - this is what they are. GP is making the appeal to legality which is wrong in this case. The law is to prevent employers from extorting all employees into taking political action under threat of termination. Terminating a single employee for their past political actions is different from extorting all employees into action.

> The law is to prevent employers from extorting all employees into taking political action under threat of termination. Not incorrect, but an incomplete description of these worker protections. It is also prevents employers from threatening employees into refraining from taking political action, "No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of di…

This is becoming ad nauseum. You're missing the point about how the law applies differently to company policy and actions, but my guess is that you desperately want them to be the same hence your repeated arguments and confirmation bias. The lawyer blogs you and another commenter linked to are trying to sell services to sue employers and are not valid analyses.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know the difference between threatening someone to coerce them into action, and actually doing it for said actions?

Both are prohibited, "...through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment". It's illegal to do influence employees through means of discharge or through threat of discharge. Firing someone for political activity and threatening to fire someone for political activity are both in violation of these employment protections.

You're cherry picking the statement by quoting it out of context, which shows the law only applies to one (coercion):

> No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

You also dodged the question.

Post reply on HN