5 ms·

>we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers,

by htrp 8mo ago

>we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly. This is one way of making an all-in bet on AI. >we're not going to just disappear people from slack and email and pretend they were never here. communication channels will stay open through thursday evening (pacific) so everyone can say goodbye properly, and share whatever you wish. i'll also be hosting a live video session to thank everyone at 3:35pm pacific. i know doing it this way might feel awkward. i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold. Well that's interesting, wonder if we'll actually get a proper accounting of which departments take which cuts.

chilipepperhott 8mo ago
Their shareholder meeting is later today. Maybe we'll find out.
re-thc 8mo ago
> but something has changed i.e. we finally decided to audit head count from post covid-era. > paired with smaller and flatter teams i.e. management was axed
- gusmally 8mo ago
  you don't think LLM impacts on productivity were a factor at all?
  - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
    If LLMs really multiply productivity, why would you fire people and handicap the boost? I have 100 people that can now do the work of 200 people thanks to a new tool. How is the logical response to fire half of them and bring my productivity back to where it was before?
    - themgt 8mo ago
      Demand inelasticity.
      - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
        > our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers
    - jibe 8mo ago
      He explains the rationale, smaller teams work faster. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.
      - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
        This is just rephrasing the same concept. Claiming than a small group with AI can accomplish more than a large group with AI doesn’t make sense. More likely the company doesn’t have enough work for the large group.
        throwyawayyyy 8mo ago
        I do see fewer Square terminals these days, more Toast (and other options too I think).
        jibe 8mo ago
        Have you worked at a big company? It makes sense to me that a small group would be much more productive than a large group, even without AI. Throw in some AI help, and it could be much better.
        re-thc 8mo ago
        > It makes sense to me that a small group would be much more productive than a large group That's not the scenario. The scenario is a large group vs a large group cut into a small group. The chaos and disruption of slicing 1/2 the company would more than offset any gains. We got people. Not machines. Not everyone adapts so fast. Team work and efficiencies take time.
  - prescriptivist 8mo ago
    I would say the vast majority of people in this thread don't believe that this is related to AI at all, other than as a pretext. It's kind of incredible.
    - re-thc 8mo ago
      As in AI is a belief? This isn't a religion. IF things don't add up they don't.
mattbillenstein 8mo ago
Even if the AI piece isn't really true - smaller flatter teams will move faster anyway. I always wonder having worked in a lot of startups with 10-50ppl, what on earth a business does with 10000.
- iaaan 8mo ago
  Seconded. My experience has been that -- even while still complying with lots of overhead (e.g. government regulations and compliance) -- smaller teams of 1-3 devs move waaaaay faster than teams of 4-10. Could definitely speak to the overall codebase quality or some other factor, but yeah.
  - IshKebab 8mo ago
    I expect it's more that early in projects you move faster, and that normally involves fewer people. Once projects get bigger they need more devs and also move slower. Put a team of 1-3 devs on MS Word and see how fast they move...
    - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
      I found this an interesting question and did some research out of curiosity [Full credits to wikipedia]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Division (The company behind what's gonna be essentially StarOffice/Later OpenOffice/Libreoffice given Libreoffice is a fork of OpenOffice) Star Division was a German software company best known for developing StarOffice, a proprietary office suite. The company was founded in 1985 by 16-year-old Marco Börries in Lüneburg, and initially operated as a small startup. Its first product was StarWriter, a word processor that later evolved into the StarOffice suite. Their number of employees by the late 1997/1990's from the wiki article suggests 170. They/StarOffice achieved over 25 million sales worldwide and held an estimated 25% share of the office suite market in Germany by the late 1990s There aren't many true MSword alternatives for what its worth but I found a gnome project which is interesting from alternativeto https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/AbiWord/-/project_members https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/AbiWord/-/project_members There seem to be 5 main members (I am not counting the Gitlab Admin and administrator) Interestingly, If I remember correctly, I saw Alexandar Franke in here, I have actually talked to alexandar franke a long time ago on matrix back when I used to use fractal. It was definitely a fun surprise to see him in this project as well. Aside from that, I think the problem with MS word to me feels like it tried to copy the features of previous word processors including quirks and now anything which wants to be MS word competitor is sometimes forced to copy these quirks as well which to me feels like the stressful cause for the reason why we don't see too many new approaches within this space (in my limited opinion)
tootie 8mo ago
I question how much of this is really AI vs them just regrouping around their core products and shutting down a lot of ventures or tertiary projects. Either way, the messaging we're seeing is a real shift from the ZIRP ear. Tech companies used to use headcount as a metric of growth. They'd be hiring just to say they're hiring because it looks like growth. Now it's in vogue to boast about your AI adoption and how many fewer heads you need to operate. I think both are lot of blowing smoke, but now it's going to hurt a lot of people.
willio58 8mo ago
> i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold. So deeply ironic considering he claims he’s doing this because AI can do the jobs these people did. These billionaires will learn one day that removing humans doesn’t stop at the bottom layer. It’ll continue to happen at layers above until their own position starts to be put into question. They’ll realize those people who are removed due to AI taking their jobs still need to put food on their tables. It’ll take time, but ultimately there are only so many ways that can go. The answer will be extreme taxation on the billionaires.
- throwyawayyyy 8mo ago
  I do genuinely wonder about the endgame here. Why would the objective winners of the _current_ system, our billionaire class, want to disrupt that system? Do they really believe that they will necessarily be winners in the new world too, are they that arrogant?
  - Atreiden 8mo ago
    They already understand the current system and status quo is going away. They understand, on some level, the consequences of the technocapitalist system they've built and perpetuated. They're making their own accommodations, rather than trying to change the course: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
    - gom_jabbar 8mo ago
      I think assuming human agency (building technocapitalism, correcting course) or the possibility to escape capitalism and its consequences (in bunkers), underestimates what capitalism is.

by htrp 8mo ago

chilipepperhott 8mo ago

Their shareholder meeting is later today. Maybe we'll find out.

re-thc 8mo ago

> but something has changed i.e. we finally decided to audit head count from post covid-era. > paired with smaller and flatter teams i.e. management was axed

gusmally 8mo ago
you don't think LLM impacts on productivity were a factor at all?
- MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
  If LLMs really multiply productivity, why would you fire people and handicap the boost? I have 100 people that can now do the work of 200 people thanks to a new tool. How is the logical response to fire half of them and bring my productivity back to where it was before?
  - themgt 8mo ago
    Demand inelasticity.
    - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
      > our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers
  - jibe 8mo ago
    He explains the rationale, smaller teams work faster. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.
    - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
      This is just rephrasing the same concept. Claiming than a small group with AI can accomplish more than a large group with AI doesn’t make sense. More likely the company doesn’t have enough work for the large group.
      - throwyawayyyy 8mo ago
        I do see fewer Square terminals these days, more Toast (and other options too I think).
      - jibe 8mo ago
        Have you worked at a big company? It makes sense to me that a small group would be much more productive than a large group, even without AI. Throw in some AI help, and it could be much better.
        re-thc 8mo ago
        > It makes sense to me that a small group would be much more productive than a large group That's not the scenario. The scenario is a large group vs a large group cut into a small group. The chaos and disruption of slicing 1/2 the company would more than offset any gains. We got people. Not machines. Not everyone adapts so fast. Team work and efficiencies take time.
- prescriptivist 8mo ago
  I would say the vast majority of people in this thread don't believe that this is related to AI at all, other than as a pretext. It's kind of incredible.
  - re-thc 8mo ago
    As in AI is a belief? This isn't a religion. IF things don't add up they don't.

mattbillenstein 8mo ago

Even if the AI piece isn't really true - smaller flatter teams will move faster anyway. I always wonder having worked in a lot of startups with 10-50ppl, what on earth a business does with 10000.

iaaan 8mo ago
Seconded. My experience has been that -- even while still complying with lots of overhead (e.g. government regulations and compliance) -- smaller teams of 1-3 devs move waaaaay faster than teams of 4-10. Could definitely speak to the overall codebase quality or some other factor, but yeah.
- IshKebab 8mo ago
  I expect it's more that early in projects you move faster, and that normally involves fewer people. Once projects get bigger they need more devs and also move slower. Put a team of 1-3 devs on MS Word and see how fast they move...
  - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
    I found this an interesting question and did some research out of curiosity [Full credits to wikipedia]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Division (The company behind what's gonna be essentially StarOffice/Later OpenOffice/Libreoffice given Libreoffice is a fork of OpenOffice) Star Division was a German software company best known for developing StarOffice, a proprietary office suite. The company was founded in 1985 by 16-year-old Marco Börries in Lüneburg, and initially operated as a small startup. Its first product was StarWriter, a word processor that later evolved into the StarOffice suite. Their number of employees by the late 1997/1990's from the wiki article suggests 170. They/StarOffice achieved over 25 million sales worldwide and held an estimated 25% share of the office suite market in Germany by the late 1990s There aren't many true MSword alternatives for what its worth but I found a gnome project which is interesting from alternativeto https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/AbiWord/-/project_members https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/AbiWord/-/project_members There seem to be 5 main members (I am not counting the Gitlab Admin and administrator) Interestingly, If I remember correctly, I saw Alexandar Franke in here, I have actually talked to alexandar franke a long time ago on matrix back when I used to use fractal. It was definitely a fun surprise to see him in this project as well. Aside from that, I think the problem with MS word to me feels like it tried to copy the features of previous word processors including quirks and now anything which wants to be MS word competitor is sometimes forced to copy these quirks as well which to me feels like the stressful cause for the reason why we don't see too many new approaches within this space (in my limited opinion)

tootie 8mo ago

I question how much of this is really AI vs them just regrouping around their core products and shutting down a lot of ventures or tertiary projects. Either way, the messaging we're seeing is a real shift from the ZIRP ear. Tech companies used to use headcount as a metric of growth. They'd be hiring just to say they're hiring because it looks like growth. Now it's in vogue to boast about your AI adoption and how many fewer heads you need to operate. I think both are lot of blowing smoke, but now it's going to hurt a lot of people.

willio58 8mo ago

> i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold. So deeply ironic considering he claims he’s doing this because AI can do the jobs these people did. These billionaires will learn one day that removing humans doesn’t stop at the bottom layer. It’ll continue to happen at layers above until their own position starts to be put into question. They’ll realize those people who are removed due to AI taking their jobs still need to put food on their tables. It’ll take time, but ultimately there are only so many ways that can go. The answer will be extreme taxation on the billionaires.

throwyawayyyy 8mo ago
I do genuinely wonder about the endgame here. Why would the objective winners of the _current_ system, our billionaire class, want to disrupt that system? Do they really believe that they will necessarily be winners in the new world too, are they that arrogant?
- Atreiden 8mo ago
  They already understand the current system and status quo is going away. They understand, on some level, the consequences of the technocapitalist system they've built and perpetuated. They're making their own accommodations, rather than trying to change the course: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
  - gom_jabbar 8mo ago
    I think assuming human agency (building technocapitalism, correcting course) or the possibility to escape capitalism and its consequences (in bunkers), underestimates what capitalism is.