> But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, No, we don't: the makeup of roles being terminated could be 56%, or even higher than 56%. The article m

> But we know that the makeup isn't anywhere near that, No, we don't: the makeup of roles being terminated could be 56%, or even higher than 56%. The article mentioned that 28% of people laid off were HR, but didn't give a breakdown beyond that. Simply assuming that the roles being eliminated are proportional to the company's overall workforce is just as naive as assuming they're proportional to the general population.