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

Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#941

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

toast0 wrote: post #767
the_af wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're arguing a more general point, but it's worth pointing out in their layoff announcement, CloudFlare is claiming: - This is NOT performance related. - This is NOT a cost cutting exercise. They say both things explicitly. What they don't say very clearly is what the layoffs ARE about.

> This is NOT performance related. It's important to say a large layoff isn't performance related, because it helps those who got laid off find new work. Even if it was all performance related, you want someone else to hire your former employees. And, in a large layoff, it's likely to be at least partially true. Large layoffs work better when they're done quickly, when there's signs of layoffs but no information, man…

Didn't a few large tech companies fail even that low bar of decency? I seem to recall news of layoffs in the not too distant past where the employer openly let it be known those chosen were chosen for performance reasons, e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/14/meta-targeting-lowest-perfor...

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#942

Post by theshackleford »

sneak wrote: post #900
bartread wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so ethically and morally odious I struggle to find the words to describe it. I’ve managed people out. I’m sure I’ll have to do it again. I’ve even let people go during probation but, on the rare occasions that’s happened, I’ve seen it as a failure of the hiring process. People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to…

> People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line. Literally none of that is the employer’s responsibility. It’s just a business transaction. Having sufficient savin…

You missed the point by such a large margin it’s impressive.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#943

Post by rileymat2 »

_heimdall wrote: post #939
cortesoft wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it should be the companies job, but I would be ok with it being paid for by taxes companies pay. Requiring companies to do all of these extra things just gives larger companies more and more advantages, since they have an economy of scale to provide go government-type services. I don't want my company to be in charge of my whole life. Let them pay taxes to a government that can provide those things equa…

What's the difference in it being a responsibility of the company and it being a program paid for by races paid by companies? I mean this as a genuine question, in case that isn't clear. To me the latter is just socializing the cost across multiple companies, but I'm happy to be wrong here.

Unemployment taxes/benefits are largely like that. And they are experience rated, so high risk pay more.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#944

Post by apple4ever »

the_af wrote: post #678
gk1 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI tools make great team members even better This is the predominant (public) talking point. And it’s true. But along with that: when you have effective people becoming even more effective with AI, it becomes glaringly obvious who the INeffective people are. At which point it becomes hard to justify keeping those people around. (That often includes people who are otherwise effective but aren’t utilizing agents and…

I know you're arguing a more general point, but it's worth pointing out in their layoff announcement, CloudFlare is claiming: - This is NOT performance related. - This is NOT a cost cutting exercise. They say both things explicitly. What they don't say very clearly is what the layoffs ARE about.

They are lying about it not being a cost cutting exercise

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#945

Post by anal_reactor »

epolanski wrote: post #916
anal_reactor wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found that video and I couldn't finish watching it. TBH it's really incomprehensible to me why we've created a culture where being so heartless is praised upon.

That's how the world works, we just automated and hidden most of the disgusting stuff.

No. She raises a valid point "if the company overhired, then just tell me".

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#946

Post by wreath »

punkbit wrote: post #640
Snoozle wrote: post #69

"We are our own most demanding customer. Cloudflare’s usage of AI has increased by more than 600% in the last three months alone. Employees across the company from engineering to HR to finance to marketing run thousands of AI agent sessions each day to get their work done. That means we have to be intentional in how we architect our company for the agentic AI era in order to supercharge the value we deliver to our cu…

I believe they meant that the cost of using an LLM is extremely high! There are reports of people spending USD $500~1000 a day! There's the possibility of decoupling of effort and output! Which causes an illusion of work.

What kind of problems do people solve that require this amount of money per month, let alone per day?

Is anyone reviewing the output of the generated work (PRs, docs etc)?

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#947

Post by coldtea »

tempest_ wrote: post #732
coldtea wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're building the future with new fresh people instead of the "dead weight" If the "future" being built is one that those same interns would be dropped as "dead weight" as soon as they settle into families and refuse to be exploited with overwork, then it's a bad future, even if it's one with more CDN features. Although, instead, it will be a more enshittified one anyway: they're cheapening your company and the p…

Cloudflare is a public company. The incentives do not allow it to look more than a year (and in a lot of cases a quarter) down the road.

"Public companies" with incentives shaped that way are a driver of bad outcomes

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#948

Post by ThunderSizzle »

sneak wrote: post #900
bartread wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so ethically and morally odious I struggle to find the words to describe it. I’ve managed people out. I’m sure I’ll have to do it again. I’ve even let people go during probation but, on the rare occasions that’s happened, I’ve seen it as a failure of the hiring process. People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to…

> People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line. Literally none of that is the employer’s responsibility. It’s just a business transaction. Having sufficient savin…

I've heard this before.

Then COVID happened and employers didn't have 2-4 months of savings built up, and ended up shuttering due to lack of money immediately.

Also, since post COVID, we've had hyper inflation and a locked up housing market. $150 townhomes that a $50 family salary could afford are now going for $300. And rent has gone up to match.

I don't think the numbers not matching is because of anyone's personal financial responsibility. It's more from the Fed's and Congress's horrible actions over the past 2 decades and their financial irresponsibility.

Granted, grumbling about the powers that be doesn't solve the problem, which is why I fear civil turmoil will be here very soon.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#949

Post by laidoff2026 »

jmtame wrote: post #903
lyton wrote: post #817

Fyi, the CEO claims[0] they fired very few engineers. The prime target were allegedly salespeople 0: https://x.com/eastdakota/status/2052560831909433554

This comment should be higher given how much FUD is in these comments. Hacker News having a meltdown about a bunch of backoffice folks getting laid off while they’re still aggressively hiring SWEs is… something

MANY engineers were fired. including some of the best I've ever met. don't believe the CEOs lies.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#950

Post by harimau777 »

sneak wrote: post #900
bartread wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so ethically and morally odious I struggle to find the words to describe it. I’ve managed people out. I’m sure I’ll have to do it again. I’ve even let people go during probation but, on the rare occasions that’s happened, I’ve seen it as a failure of the hiring process. People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to…

> People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line. Literally none of that is the employer’s responsibility. It’s just a business transaction. Having sufficient savin…

Its a business transaction with a MASSIVE power differential and as Spiderman taught us, with great power comes great responsibility.

An employer has a responsibility to treat an employee with respect, not exploit them, and give them a fair part in the rewards when the company succeeds.

Post reply on HN