Fair
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fair:
How much do you know about the people who were fired?
All of them? Obviously, nothing. I'm guessing Elon hadn't met most of them either. You're happy to write them all off because you didn't like Twitter?
It doesn't actually matter. Anybody who gets off on firing people has issues, and Musk really did appear to be quite excited about it.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Fair:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fair:
How much do you know about the people who were fired?
All of them? Obviously, nothing.
I think it's possible that the only reason why you're getting all Springsteen on these people in particular is because it's bad ol' Elon who laid them off.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Fair:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fair:
How much do you know about the people who were fired?
All of them? Obviously, nothing.
I think it's possible that the only reason why you're getting all Springsteen on these people in particular is because it's bad ol' Elon who laid them off.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fair:
I think it's possible that the only reason why you're getting all Springsteen on these people in particular is because it's bad ol' Elon who laid them off.
No, it's because I've fired people. They were hopeless, but firing them was a miserable experience. Of course, Musk wouldn't have the meeting himself for the most part. His underlings would handle that bit.
Take the more extreme case of an execution. Generally, the people who get executed are vile individuals who have done awful things. Still, how would you feel about a politician who was all excited about executing them who seemed to get a thrill from announcing it?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fair:
I think it's possible that the only reason why you're getting all Springsteen on these people in particular is because it's bad ol' Elon who laid them off.
No, it's because I've fired people. They were hopeless, but firing them was a miserable experience. Of course, Musk wouldn't have the meeting himself for the most part. His underlings would handle that bit.
Take the more extreme case of an execution. Generally, the people who get executed are vile individuals who have done awful things. Still, how would you feel about a politician who was all excited about executing them who seemed to get a thrill from announcing it?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Fair:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fair:
I think it's possible that the only reason why you're getting all Springsteen on these people in particular is because it's bad ol' Elon who laid them off.
No, it's because I've fired people. They were hopeless, but firing them was a miserable experience. Of course, Musk wouldn't have the meeting himself for the most part. His underlings would handle that bit.
Of course they would. Some of whom would enjoy it, too.
Upper management positions at any company are not only a good environment for psychopaths, but have exactly the job requirements that psychopaths excel at. About 5% of the general population is psychopathic, which is bad enough, but in upper management it's often somewhere between 20 and 30%.
I'm not saying Elon's a psychopath because I have no idea. I'm saying there's a reason fucked up shit happens at companies and it would be very surprising to me if you were to tell me you don't know this.
-
Elon could have written a weepy public letter and satisfied those who want to see appropriately resonant emotion connected to the downsizing, but those downsized would have ended up unemployed just the same. The sad letter would have made some people feel better, just not those actually affected.
-
Elon could have written a weepy public letter and satisfied those who want to see appropriately resonant emotion connected to the downsizing, but those downsized would have ended up unemployed just the same. The sad letter would have made some people feel better, just not those actually affected.
Elon could have written a weepy public letter and satisfied those who want to see appropriately resonant emotion connected to the downsizing, but those downsized would have ended up unemployed just the same. The sad letter would have made some people feel better, just not those actually affected.
Anybody want to bring up the toxicity these people created in their own company?
Oh and by the way that doesn't mean I'm glad they lost their jobs.
-
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
-
I would think that this becomes obvious to anybody who works at a large company. A contributing factor is that all the way up to the top, people enjoy managing larger and larger hierarchies. It would be no fun to be a CEO of a company that employs nobody but AIs. I mean, people will do that, and become enormously wealthy, but there is no replacement for having human beings under you on a hierarchy.
Education is extremely important.
-
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge that. The rule of teams is that the square root of the number of people on a team is the number of folks who do most of the work. But there are a whole spectrum of reasons why there are folks who aren't contributing as much. A lot of folks don't add value because they're just in the wrong spot, they're young and aren't yet trusted to do the work, they're old and are dealing with age discrimination, they're on the manager's shit-list because they had the audacity to try to improve things, etc. And yeah sure there are lazy sacks as well. But not all of them are lazy sacks.
-
I would think that this becomes obvious to anybody who works at a large company. A contributing factor is that all the way up to the top, people enjoy managing larger and larger hierarchies. It would be no fun to be a CEO of a company that employs nobody but AIs. I mean, people will do that, and become enormously wealthy, but there is no replacement for having human beings under you on a hierarchy.
I would think that this becomes obvious to anybody who works at a large company. A contributing factor is that all the way up to the top, people enjoy managing larger and larger hierarchies. It would be no fun to be a CEO of a company that employs nobody but AIs. I mean, people will do that, and become enormously wealthy, but there is no replacement for having human beings under you on a hierarchy.
That's what I'm wondering, too. Employee numbers are a kind of currency to a lot of those folks. But they also get evaluated on efficiency. Laying off 50% of your team while providing the same output is great on paper but now you don't get to say you managed a team of 5,000, you're down to 2,500.
Honestly I think it's just growing pains. Once it all normalizes no one's going to care—except for the scads of workers laid off of course, ha ha!—and the game will be played the same but with deflated numbers.
-
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
I'm not saying firing people is wrong, obviously it needs to happen sometimes. I'm saying getting a kick out it is sick.
The fact that other people get a kick out of it too doesn't make it ok.
I'm honestly not virtue signaling here, I found firing people really distressing. I've also had two people crying in my office because of performance reviews which I probably could have handled better. Anybody who enjoys that kind of shit can go fuck themselves, I don't care how rich they are.
A friend of mine at another company in the UK fired somebody who then went and hung himself.
I was only joking
-
-
hung himself.
Hanged.
That word is hung in the balance between two /@Aqua-Letifers.
-
-
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
I'm not saying firing people is wrong, obviously it needs to happen sometimes. I'm saying getting a kick out it is sick.
The fact that other people get a kick out of it too doesn't make it ok.
I'm honestly not virtue signaling here, I found firing people really distressing. I've also had two people crying in my office because of performance reviews which I probably could have handled better. Anybody who enjoys that kind of shit can go fuck themselves, I don't care how rich they are.
A friend of mine at another company in the UK fired somebody who then went and hung himself.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Fair:
In general, you don't want to see people lose their jobs.
That being said, I don't know about you but every single organization I've worked in... you could fire probably 50% of the workforce tomorrow without an impact to the company. The key is knowing which folks aren't adding value and which ones are.
I'm not saying firing people is wrong, obviously it needs to happen sometimes. I'm saying getting a kick out it is sick.
The fact that other people get a kick out of it too doesn't make it ok.
I'm honestly not virtue signaling here, I found firing people really distressing. I've also had two people crying in my office because of performance reviews which I probably could have handled better. Anybody who enjoys that kind of shit can go fuck themselves, I don't care how rich they are.
A friend of mine at another company in the UK fired somebody who then went and hung himself.
Believe me, I get it. I learned just last week there is a massive group of folks I work with who want us all laid off. They really want it. Like real bad. And they have more clout than we do. Things aren't great for people like me right now in the job market. The frustrating thing is that it's just like desktop publishing in the 90s. Our careers aren't at risk because the computers can replace us—they're at risk because morons think they can. (The folks in the 90s eventually got their careers back with new job titles but it was a rough half-decade for them). And that's just my corner of things but once our little toys become self-aware, well, what makes you think you aren't going to have the same problems? Or much bigger ones?
But a lot of my co-workers got laid off last year and no one's speaking up for them because Elon Musk didn't do the laying off.
People care about the Twitter employees because it made the news. It made the news because Elon Musk is newsworthy. And he's newsworthy because he elicits emotions in people.
