3 ms·

Author mentions that his team's work saved "millions" of dollars for Meta every year - let's assume that's $10 million. Meta's operating expenses are over $80 b

• sp332 4y ago
  If the team is costing less than $10 million/year, it still makes less sense to let them go.
  • time_to_smile 4y ago
    It's not hard for a team at Meta to easily cost more than $10 million/year. Average TC for each IC could reasonably have been in the 500k/year area and that doesn't count other benefits/infra overhead. A few very senior people on the team could easily have pushed the average TC up quite a bit. So if the team was around 20 people that already doesn't make sense.
    • function_seven 4y ago
      This post notes that the savings were net of cost. Maybe Eric is wrong, but assuming his math checks out, cutting a team that delivers net savings can’t be justified on the basis of cost-cutting.
      • MengerSponge 4y ago
        It only makes sense if you can make it up in volume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodqIPMbyUg&t=53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodqIPMbyUg&t=53s
      • beachy 4y ago
        > a team that delivers net savings can’t be justified on the basis of cost-cutting ..in theory not, but in practice cost-cutting is often less a scientific, data-based project and more a cataclysmic purgative process where factors such as speed of execution are important. e.g. Elon has certainly lost many, many great people and teams who were net positive for Twitter's bottom line in his recent purges. But he probably thinks there is huge value in acting quickly and putting the aggressive cutting behind him and inserting his "hardcore" team. There would be a real cost to the Twitter shareholders in doing a slow and scientific analysis of who to cut - there's a case to be made that a ruthless tearing off of the bandaid would more quickly lead to a profitable place, even if there is collateral damage on the way.
    • runevault 4y ago
      Except he specifically said millions of dollars a year "over the cost of the work". They were a net bonus on the balance sheet.
    • progbits 4y ago
      The article says their _net_ cost savings were $10M. So I would expect that accounts for the costs of the team (salary, and whatever cost they spent building their projects). Either way, not disputing the arguments in this comment chain.
  • htrp 4y ago
    The savings are already banked (in the code/infrastructure) so you save the headcount cost as well.
    • bombcar 4y ago
      This is the key takeaway. I may save the company $10m today, but then have absolutely no chance of ever saving the company any money again. Not that this is the case here, but this is how it can seem to the counters of the beans.
• trenchgun 4y ago
  Full quote: "The mission of the Probability division was to create small teams that applied the latest academic research to real-world at-scale problems, in order to improve other groups’ decision-making and lower their costs. New sub-teams were constantly formed; if they didn’t show results quickly then they were failed-fast; if they did show results then they were reorganized into whatever division they could most effectively lower costs. We were very successful at this. The PPL team in particular was at the point where we were regularly putting models into production that on net reduced costs by millions of dollars a year over the cost of the work. We were almost ready to be spun off. We foolishly thought that we would naturally be protected from any layoffs, being a team that reduced costs of any team we partnered with. In retrospect, that was a little naive. A team that reduces costs of other teams is not on anyone’s critical path."
• trenchgun 4y ago
  His other comment clarifies this: "The team was all mathematicians. We did the math. I helped one of our data scientists put a model into production that saved $15M a year from that model alone, and we had a dozen people like that. We were working on signal loss models that had potential to save billions. I genuinely do not understand the logic of cutting this team to save costs." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33806727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33806727
• bfeynman 4y ago
  This news didn't surprise me at all. Academics and research scientists on teams like this are very far removed from driving revenue and understanding the value you provide. It's just as likely that the teams they saved costs for are also hemorrhaging anyway and being shut down or reduced.
  • anonreeeeplor 4y ago
    I am personally shocked continually at how drastically overvalued seeming engineering is. I read through what he wrote here - Not to be cynical; and I used to be an engineer: but this sounded like a bunch of fluffy B.S. I used to work at several mega corps. Very overstaffed ones. We had tons of very elite engineers doing god knows what. They always had stories that sounded exactly like this - It’s so complicated you wouldn’t understand! I believe engineering has become way overvalued relative to what it is worth realistically. I will give far more credibility to anyone who has built or tried to build and run or manage their own startup or business. Too many engineers have only ever worked in these environments where they are totally disconnected from reality.
    • fritzo 4y ago
      Can you offer any constructive advice to us engineers, and help us move towards more value-creating contributions? I hear your "disconnected from reality", but I'm not sure what to do about it.