4 ms·
For a long time this was compounded by a "better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in" strategy, where you hired people to deny them to
by fidotron 5mo ago
For a long time this was compounded by a "better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in" strategy, where you hired people to deny them to your competition and then invented things for them to do. If it turns out whole segments are in fact pointless then the endgame could be truly nuts.
- nradov 5mo agoThat was never a major factor in employment statistics. Only a handful of the most profitable tech companies ever had the financial resources to even attempt that strategy, and only for a small fraction of their employees.
- fidotron 5mo agoAt FAANG it has been huge. Whole departments/products/divisions level, including many of the most expensive employees. There are reasons so many products get made to go precisely nowhere, because no one ever seriously intended for them to do otherwise. There are even cases where things succeeded by accident which were not supposed to and then have to be redone properly. As observed in another (more eloquent) comment here making the same point > In the new AI world, denying resources doesn’t slow competitors down anymore because AI raises the productivity floor. Now that over-employment brings no competitive advantage, we’re seeing huge cuts. This is completely right.
- nradov 5mo agoEven if your claim was true (and I don't really believe it) we're still talking about a tiny fraction of the overall tech labor market. The impact is insignificant.