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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#951

Post by harimau777 »

s_dev wrote: post #542
scott01 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen managers hiring people with an intent to lay them off when winds change to protect themselves and their close circle. I can only imagine they’ve had great KPIs in both cases: first for scaling the team, and then for cutting costs.

This is completely acceptable. When was the last time you saw any job seeker seriously enquire about such practices in interviews or at the application stage? A lot of people here and in the industry in general seem to optimise for compensation package and put blinkers on themselves for other factors that are definitely relevant. Companies aren't penalised by candidates for such practices. I'm not saying it's good bu…

At least personally, I optimize for "any job that I can get in this horrible job market". When job seekers are despirate I don't think you can realistically say that their taking the job implies consent. They've effectively been given the offer "take this job or become homeless".

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#952

Post by harimau777 »

_heimdall wrote: post #570
lagniappe wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to agree, however, it will take every bit of that time for some to find new placement. These AI cuts aren't just making it harder to keep a job, but harder to get a job as well.

For better or worse, it isn't a company's job to pay laid off employees until they find a new role. The industry standard for severance is 1-2 weeks pay per year at the company, paying out roughly 7 months is a big deal (and yes, an acknowledgment of how rough they know the job hunt will be).

Disagree. If a company puts someone in a precarious situation then they have the obligation to take responsibility. After all, its management who failed to keep the company successful. Unless we are saying that the C-suite doesn't actually deserve their massive compensation packages.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#953

Post by harimau777 »

Aurornis wrote: post #789
lagniappe wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to agree, however, it will take every bit of that time for some to find new placement. These AI cuts aren't just making it harder to keep a job, but harder to get a job as well.

> however, it will take every bit of that time for some to find new placement. Isn't this another way of saying the severance package is generous enough to cover the time needed to find another job even in a down market? If a severance package that covers the time needed to find a job isn't enough then it's starting to feel like we're being angry just to be angry. I don't like layoffs either (I've been laid off befor…

I don't think that seven months is near enough to reliably cover the time it takes to find a job in this market.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#954

Post by harimau777 »

happymellon wrote: post #277
krooj wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My man, all these fuckers use the same parasitic management consultancies. That's why all this shit looks the same.

Time to watch Office Space again?

Honestly, Office Space looks like a dream job compared to normal practices. Imagine getting your own cubicle! That would be amazing!

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#955

Post by kordlessagain »

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…

This is good advice. Moving the responsibility onto the employer is a BLAME game, and when people haven't prepared, it's easier if they attack the messenger instead of being critical of their own bad decisions for whom to work.

Clearly some are triggered by the idea that employers should be held accountable for those that don't plan so well. The fact is, the employers are only accountable to the stakeholders and their continued corporate existence.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#956

Post by K0balt »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #936
sneak wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

A LOT of people don't make enough money to put away 6 months of savings. You can be the most financially responsible person in existence, but if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Seriously, just how privileged can you get?

Yeah, employers should not hire people that can’t afford to put away 6 months of livings expenses, because that puts the employer in a questionable ethical position.

Or maybe a living wage with savings should be the legal minimum wage? Oh wait, nope, can’t have that lol.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#957

Post by K0balt »

theshackleford wrote: post #942
sneak wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Gotta have goals lol. Missing the point far enough to make another is remarkable.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#958

Post by headinthesky »

punkbit wrote: post #653
jdasdf wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare has never made a profit. Is your stance that shareholders should perpetually subsidize it out of the goodness of their hearts?

Cloudflare has never made a profit? The thread commentator said the product he maintained was 95% profit.

My orgs products. Others, probably not. There is a lot water they could have targeting and gone after. Starting with Dane's idiotic incomplete messes he left around and declaring them done and leaving people to clean his garbage up

Leadership is terrible and they're out of ideas. AI is going to be the future but it can't even review code properly

Their "no profit" is entire accounting trickery

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#959

Post by headinthesky »

aryehof wrote: post #235
headinthesky wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of 4 teams in Cloudflare One, who lost EMs, PMs and engineers in really critical connectivity systems. Our list of things we need to do is years long. Many of those are needed for reliability and scaling. They quietly stopped hiring months ago and I figured things were not good. My mistake was thinking my group would be a little safer being profit drivers and big deals...

Is it possible that the line of thinking really is that "agentic AI" will up for the capability shortfall? It seems to be the stated expectation, but I find it incredulous that management really would believe that?

All of us who work with AI, and HN audience especially, know the gap between what can the agent do now, and "it fulfill the functions of my job" is something that won't be overcome anytime soon. Anyone who really believes that's the case is just showcasing their lack of knowledge

Matthew Price calls it "an electric screwdriver". Does that sound like someone who has ever gotten deep on anything?

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#960

Post by ethbr1 »

bluGill wrote: post #668
rozap wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excess labor would only translate to increased revenue and new products if these companies had a product vision to begin with. But they don't, so people get sacked.

You are on the right path, but I think you are off by a bit. Every company has more work they want to do than budget allows. However some of those things won't pay off fast enough. That is they have product vision but are smart enough to realize that those extra things they won't be able to do are not things customers are willing to pay extra for today.

I'd say the most accurate casting would be:

Companies have ideas.

Companies have finite budget to pursue these ideas, and never enough to fully pursue all of them simultaneously.

It's management's job to prioritize the order in which they're pursued, subject to available budget.

In the last 5 years, leadership at the Mag 7 has been bad at this core responsibility.

* Alphabet: failed to productize its AI research

* Amazon: completely ignoring the erosion of customer trust in its core logistics business driver (warehouse retail)

* Apple: Vision Pro and lack of product vision (outside of their microprocessor group)

* Meta: VR. Enough said

* Microsoft: Windows. Enough said

* Nvidia: Granted, probably the one standout, but they did get the golden ticket to own a shovel factory during a gold rush

* Tesla: Everything

Objective check: Mag 7 ex Nvidia only outperformed the S&P 500 by +17% over the last 5 years, in contrast to prior periods (and much of that thanks to Alphabet boosting the average)

Post reply on HN