7 ms·
How come not 100% of recruiting? Would be a long time until they start hiring again.
by ugh123 4y ago
How come not 100% of recruiting? Would be a long time until they start hiring again.
- eyko 4y agoI'm not saying this is the case, but if Meta is pivoting towards a metaverse future, it would make sense to slim down on the facebook hires whilst keeping some hiring activity on the metaverse front.
- AnotherGoodName 4y agoThey need AI expertise for Reels recommendations. Source: A quick look at what jobs Meta is still hiring for.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoSo double-down on cloning tiktok, yay?
- hardtke 4y agoMy Reels recommendations are exclusively attractive women doing sexually suggestive things -- is that AI expertise? It's horrible. Does the platform have other content?
- mensetmanusman 4y agoIt’s an AI mirror…
- Retric 4y agoThat’s assuming it actually worked. Bad recommendation engines often get stuck displaying stuff that has generic appeal.
- batiudrami 4y agoSomething Instagram’s algorithm doesn’t get that Tik tok’s does is that just because I watch something doesn’t always mean I want more of it. Because I am pathetic, I may watch a few loops of a thirst trap short, but I do not want more of it in my feed. Tik Tok understands this; but Instagram sees the “increased engagement number” go up and fills my explore page with it.
- civilized 4y agoEven if overall headcount declines there will always be top talent they want to pull in for strategic advantage. In layoffs they just want to shed (what they see as) their lowest performers.
- phailhaus 4y agoIt is a terrible idea to lose 100% of your talent in any one department, because then you have to start from scratch.
- ugh123 4y agoHire contract recruiters. Seems like a strange dependency to have on a company to fuel additions to fixed costs (talent). Make it "elastic" and grow and shrink on demand.
- majormajor 4y agoLet's say a company wants to maintain a staff of 100 engineers instead of 150 engineers. And had 2 recruiters on staff. In this example, they hadn't really been growing, just kinda stable. Lay off 50 engineers and all the recruiters? Sounds great, except... in a given year, a handful of engineers would be expected to leave anyway from attrition. Either leaving for other opportunities, retiring, or getting fired for various reasons, who knows. In this case, after a layoff, you can often expect a few more to leave for other jobs because they think it's a bad sign, or they miss their friends, or whatever. So you probably still want to backfill them. You probably also want flexibility in case you realize one team needs some specific skills you didn't have. So if you're then expecting to hire 5+ people over the next year, the cost of a full-time recruiter vs a contingent fee of ~25% (+/- some) per hire using a third party recruiter still makes sense.