4 ms·
Yes, but its not really clear to me how to interpret these layoffs. 1. I could understand firing a few top executives, but is laying off a quarter of the staff
by ttcbj 3y ago
Yes, but its not really clear to me how to interpret these layoffs.
1. I could understand firing a few top executives, but is laying off a quarter of the staff likely to make the cars safer? Shouldn't they be adding people focused on safety if they intend to continue to pursue it?
2. Far more people each day die in GM's not-self-driving vehicles. Why are they not firing people over that?
I guess the generous perspective is that maybe they are trying to change an internal culture? Or maybe reduce their cost base so they have a longer runway in which to emphasize safety?
But a concerning perspective, for me, is that they are irrationally prioritizing the negative publicity associated with a single rare/newsworthy incident over the unpublicized/not-newsworthy daily drumbeat of human-caused auto deaths. And that doesn't seem to be good for safety in the long term.
- nyxtom 3y agoLarge majority of layoffs were non-engineering and specifically targeted in such a way that we can refocus on standardization and benchmarking profiles for a single city re-launch while cutting and revisiting programs wholesale such as commercial operations (which is on hold for some time). We don't have infinite money and need to build standards that can benefit the whole community/industry/regulations. Despite what many are saying - this is being done calculated and methodical.
- InCityDreams 3y ago>..we can refocus on standardization and benchmarking profiles for a single city re-launch while cutting and revisiting programs wholesale. Should there be a comma after 'standardisation'. Maybe after 'launch', too?
- AlotOfReading 3y agoHow does Cruise focus on standardization by laying off the people who were writing them? Surely you've interacted with the sensors teams, or the kernel teams, or the silicon teams, or the hardware teams, or syseng, or any of the other engineering teams that saw significant cuts?
- nyxtom 3y agoI wasn’t aware of significant cuts to those teams. How much did we lose there? Could that have been mistaken as limited to Origin devs?
- AlotOfReading 3y agoMy visibility is somewhat reduced given that I was one of them, but from what I've heard from the people remaining, 10-15% losses on those teams, including a lot of the staff+ people. It included engineers who were on the critical path for MY28, some of the people replacing the MCTM, etc.
- jvanderbot 3y agoThis is not an attempt to make cars safer. It is a cost-saving measure as they slowly fold the company or attempt to pivot strategy. Remember they lost their operating license in San Francisco? How many people were employed to run that? (2) is an age-old question. Why are people upset over Fukishima but not air pollution deaths from oil & gas?
- ceejayoz 3y ago> is laying off a quarter of the staff likely to make the cars safer? It reflects the fact that they can no longer legally operate in their main market.
- foobarian 3y agoI think they are figuring out that self-driving bits are too hard to make work, and are cutting their losses.
- webel0 3y ago> 2. Far more people each day die in GM's not-self-driving vehicles. Why are they not firing people over that? First, you need to consider accidents per mile driven. Second, you need to consider accidents attributable to the manufacturer as opposed to user error. In driverless, every accident is manufacturer error to some degree. Recalls are a decent proxy for manufacturer error in non-driverless. I'm sure that heads do roll at GM when a recall occurs.