5 ms·
The article says “about 16%”. I don’t think the number in the article should be taken as an exact count. > it makes me think that they decided "how many people
by PragmaticPulp 3y ago
The article says “about 16%”. I don’t think the number in the article should be taken as an exact count.
> it makes me think that they decided "how many people do we need to sacrifice to appease the finance gods" rather than "how many of these roles are really needed to achieve the goals we set ourselves".
Any big layoff involves, or is possibly the result of, shifting goals. Company goals change, especially as changing economics makes them more or less possible.
- stefan_ 3y agoWhen one number is given as exact, and the other prefixed with "about", your intuition is that the exact number is not in fact an exact count? That is very odd.
- furyofantares 3y agoBecause it said "about 16%, or 500 employees" - the "about" prefixes both things. I understand how you can read it otherwise, but it is how I read it.
- justeleblanc 3y agoWhat were you expecting? Scientific notation with error margins? "We fired 5×10²±5 employees"?