←back to thread

492 points Lionga | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[] No.45672187[source]
Because the AI works so well, or because it doesn't?

> ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios.

That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.

replies(34): >>45672233 #>>45672238 #>>45672266 #>>45672367 #>>45672370 #>>45672398 #>>45672463 #>>45672519 #>>45672571 #>>45672592 #>>45672666 #>>45672709 #>>45672722 #>>45672855 #>>45672862 #>>45672949 #>>45673049 #>>45673060 #>>45673501 #>>45673549 #>>45673723 #>>45673795 #>>45674537 #>>45674817 #>>45674914 #>>45675187 #>>45675194 #>>45675426 #>>45675612 #>>45676161 #>>45676264 #>>45676418 #>>45676920 #>>45678165 #
freedomben ◴[] No.45672949[source]
I can actually relate to that, especially in a big co where you hire fast. I think it's shitty to over-hire and lay off, but I've definitely worked in many teams where there were just too many people (many very smart) with their own sense of priorities and goals, and it makes it hard to anything done. This is especially true when you over-divide areas of responsiblity.
replies(1): >>45673902 #
drivebyhooting ◴[] No.45673902[source]
Those people have families and responsibilities. Leadership should take responsibility for their poor planning.

Alas, the burden falls on the little guys. Especially in this kind of labor market.

replies(2): >>45674801 #>>45676907 #
1. freedomben ◴[] No.45676907[source]
I agree, hence why I think it's shitty. I would like to see accountability for these people. They should be on the layoff chopping block IMHO.

But that said, you still have to deal with the situation and move forward. Sunk cost fallacy and all that