←back to thread

Mozilla lays off 70

(techcrunch.com)
929 points ameshkov | 3 comments | 15 Jan 20 19:48 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dman ◴[15 Jan 20 21:11 UTC] No.22058629[source]▶
Brendan Eich has a helpful chart of Compensation of Highest paid executive at Mozilla vs Firefox market share over time.

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217512049716035584/p...

replies(8): >>22058725 #>>22059044 #>>22059122 #>>22059260 #>>22059384 #>>22059453 #>>22059705 #>>22060015 #
paul7986 ◴[15 Jan 20 22:16 UTC] No.22059384[source]▶
Seems odd in his tweet he noted he was unable to get funding in the valley for Brave. The guy created JavaScript and was a creator of Firefox. Don't get it ..as JS alone has contributed like how much to world economies, as well to almost every HN reader's wallet/bank.
replies(7): >>22059421 #>>22059434 #>>22059454 #>>22059460 #>>22059493 #>>22061138 #>>22062663 #
Thorentis ◴[15 Jan 20 22:22 UTC] No.22059454[source]▶
Read more about his background and you'll see why. Cancel culture is definitely real. (There was a post here from WSJ the other day about it - wasn't great since it was more of a whinge, but there are some legitimate examples of "cancel culture" happening, and they are increasing in the tech industry).

tl;dr he was fired for having conservative beliefs, and nobody in the valley would touch him. So he went a founded Brave instead.

replies(2): >>22059513 #>>22059612 #
eschaton ◴[15 Jan 20 22:28 UTC] No.22059513[source]▶
Don’t sanitize it, he was fired for being anti-gay.

That should make it a little clearer why funders won’t touch him (and many won’t touch his new work).

replies(5): >>22059605 #>>22059622 #>>22059647 #>>22060643 #>>22060809 #
A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[15 Jan 20 22:39 UTC] No.22059605[source]▶
I did not know that. It is odd though. I used to remember no one cared what about your Views as long as you were good at what you did. CS was as close to meritocracy as it could have been. It is a shame.
replies(4): >>22059846 #>>22059889 #>>22059961 #>>22060272 #
sp332 ◴[15 Jan 20 23:10 UTC] No.22059846[source]▶
"Views" are one thing... I guess. Working to make sure your employees don't get the legal right to get married is another.
replies(2): >>22060034 #>>22060419 #
A4ET8a8uTh0[dead post] ◴[15 Jan 20 23:32 UTC] No.22060034[source]▶
[flagged]
1. wwright ◴[16 Jan 20 00:01 UTC] No.22060267{3}[source]▶
Part of his job was to acquire and retain employees, allocate capital, and engage in public relations.

Spending his personal money on fucking over other people (with no real benefit to the world), many of whom worked for or could work for him, is a bad sign about those parts of his job.

(That may not be an argument for the board to fire him, of course, but it is an answer to “how good is he at his job?”)

replies(1): >>22060442 #
2. A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[16 Jan 20 00:27 UTC] No.22060442[source]▶
Well, how is him spending his personal money anyone's business but his own? Now, you could make an argument that his sort of mob mentality is why people now skulk around behind various trusts, llcs and PACs to any kind of political work other people may dislike.

To your point, I guess it really depends on how you define his set of responsibilities, which is a valid point to make. I thought of something very limited ( writing lines of code ).

From that perspective.. why does it matter who he donates to and why. Is it not up to him to decide?

replies(1): >>22060600 #
3. wwright ◴[16 Jan 20 00:51 UTC] No.22060600[source]▶
He was the CEO, so it was much more than coding. For a regular software engineer (ie, no direct reports) I think it’s a very different calculus.

And it _is_ up to him to decide how to spend his money. But if he spends that money on things that deeply impact other people, it is more than fair for other people to care.