| ▲ | roxolotl 5 days ago |
| Maybe this time investors will realize how incompetent these leaders are? How do you go from 250mil contracts to freezes in under a month? |
|
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I really don't understand this massive flip flopping. Do I have this timeline correct? * January, announce massive $65B AI spend * June, buy Scale AI for ~$15B, massive AI hiring spree, reportedly paying millions per year for low-level AI devs * July, announce some of the biggest data centers ever that will cost billions and use all of Ohio's water (hyperbolic) * Aug, freeze, it's a bubble! Someone please tell me I've got it all wrong. This looks like the Metaverse all over again! |
| |
| ▲ | abxyz 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The bubble narrative is coming from the outside. More likely is that the /acquisition/ of Scale has led to an abundance of talent that is being underutilised. If you give managers the option to hire, they will. Freezing hiring while reorganising is a sane strategy regardless of how well you are or are not doing. | | |
| ▲ | prasadjoglekar 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This. TFA says this explicitly. Alexander Wang, the former Scale CEO is to approve any new hires. They're taking stock of internal staff + new acquisitions and how to rationalize before further steps. Now, I think AI investments are still a bubble, but that's not why FB is freezing hiring. | | |
| ▲ | apwell23 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > They're taking stock of internal staff + new acquisitions and how to rationalize before further steps. Like a toddler collecting random toys in a pile and then deciding what to do with them. | | |
| ▲ | prasadjoglekar 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps. But more like, there's a new boss who wants to understand the biz before doing any action. I've done this personally at a much smaller scale of course. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ml-anon 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "abundance of talent" is not something I'd ascribe to Scale. | | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Better strategy of course is to quietly freeze hiring. Perhaps that is not an option for a publicly traded company though. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You could just keep having interviews yet never actually hire anyone based on the talent pool is wide but shallow. It results in the same as a freeze, but without the negative connotation to the company while shifting it to the workforce | | |
| ▲ | colinsane 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | wow there's really _zero_ sense of mutual respect in this industry isn't there. it's all just "let's make a buck by being total assholes to everyone around us". | |
| ▲ | varjag 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | With an employer the size of Meta people would get the clue fairly quick - with inevitable public backlash. |
|
| |
| ▲ | yifanl 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The bubble narrative has been ongoing for a while, but as I understand it, the extremely disappointing response to GPT-5 has spilled things over. |
| |
| ▲ | fartfeatures 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe they are poisoning the well to slow their competitors? Get the funding you need secured for the data centers and the hiring, hire everyone you need and then put out signals that there is another AI winter. | | |
| ▲ | Andrex 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That could eventually screw them over too if they're not careful. That also ascribes cleverness to Meta's C-suit which I don't think exists. | |
| ▲ | Temporary_31337 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | occam's razor |
| |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The scale they operate at makes the billions, bucks. As a board member, I'd rather see a billion-dollar bubble test than a trillion-dollar mistake. | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent [-] | | True, and after having just leaned heavy into the "metaverse" I expect they're twice shy now. |
| |
| ▲ | boxed 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The most amusing has to be then Zuckerburg publishes his "thoughts" about how he's betting 100% on AI... written underneath the logo "Meta". | | |
| ▲ | stogot 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Zuck’s metaverse will be populated by AI characters running in the $65b manhattan data center The MAU metric must continue to go up, and no one will know if it’s human or NPC | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The people "gooning" over Grok's Ani apparently can't wait to take their girlfriends there. ;-) |
|
| |
| ▲ | randycupertino 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Zuckerberg's leadership style feels very reactionary and arrogant, defined by flailing around for the new fad and new hyped thing, scrapping everything that when the current obsession doesn't work out and then sticking head in the sand about abandoned projects and ignoring subsequent whiplash. Remember when he pivoted the entire company to the meta-verse and it was all about avatars with no legs? And how proud they trumpeted when the avatars were "now with legs!!" but still looked so pathetic to everyone not in his bubble. Then for a while it was all about Meta glasses and he was spamming those goofy cringe glasses no one wants in all his instagram posts- seriously if you check out his insta he wears them constantly. Then this spring/summer it was all about AI and stealing rockstar ai coders from competitors and pouring endless money into flirty chatbots for lonely seniors. Now we have some bad press from that and realizing that isn't the panacea we thought it was so we're in the the phase where this is languishing so in about 6 months we'll abandon this and roll out a new obsession that will be endlessly hyped. Anything to distract from actually giving good stewardship and fixing the neglect and stagnation of Meta's fundamental products like facebook and insta. Wish they would just focus on increasing user functionality and enjoyment and trying to resolve the privacy issues, disinformation, ethical failures, social harm and political polarization caused by his continued poor management. | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Anything to distract from actually giving good stewardship and fixing the neglect and stagnation of Meta's fundamental products like facebook and insta. DONT TOUCH THE MONEY-MAKER(S)!!!! | |
| ▲ | Andrex 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Zuckerberg's leadership style feels very reactionary and arrogant, defined by flailing around for the new fad and new hyped thing, scrapping everything that when the current obsession doesn't work out and then sticking head in the sand about abandoned projects and ignoring subsequent whiplash. Maybe he's like this because the first few times he tried it, it worked. Insta threatening the empire? Buy Insta, no one really complains. Snapchat threatening Insta? Knock off their feature and put it in Insta. Snap almost died. The first couple times Zuckerberg threw elbows he got what he wanted and no one stopped him. That probably influenced his current mindset, maybe he thinks he's God and all tech industry trends revolve around his company. | | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a DJ, I kinda want the glasses to shoot first-person video :( |
| |
| ▲ | ozgung 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | By Amara's Law and Gartner Hype cycle every technological breakthrough looks like a bubble. Investors and technologist should already know that. I don't know why they're acting like altcoins in 2021. | | |
| ▲ | Andrex 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 1 breakthrough per 99 bubbles would make anyone cautious. The rule should be to assume a bubble is happening by default until proven otherwise by time. | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That's actually how you create a death spiral for your company. You have to assume 'growth' and not 'death'. 'life' over 'lost'. 'flourishing' over 'withering'. That you're strong enough to survive. | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Apple has seemingly done well waiting until they see a clear consumer direction (and woefully underserved tech there). | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not playing into a bubble, that's creating a product for a market. You could also argue the Apple Vision is a misplay, or at least premature. They've also arrogantly gone against consumer direction time and time again (PowerPC, Lightning Ports, no headphone jack, no replaceable battery, etc.) And finally, sometimes their vision simply doesn't shake out (AirPower) | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, yeah — Apple Vision is a complete joke. I'm an Apple apologist to a degree though so I can rationalize all their missteps. I won't deny though they have had many though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | steve1977 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| IMHO Mark Zuckerberg is a textbook case of someone who got lucky once by basically being in the right place at the right time, but who attributes his success to his skill. There’s probably a proper term for this. |
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think that meta is bad for the world and that zuck has made a lot of huge mistakes but calling him a one hit wonder doesn't sit right with me. Facebook made the transition to mobile faster than other competitors and successfully kept G+ from becoming competition. The instagram purchase felt insane at the time ($1b to share photos) but facebook was able to convert it into a moneymaking juggernaut in time for the flattened growth of their flagship application. Zuck hired Sheryl Sandburg and successfully turned a website with a ton of users into an ad-revenue machine. Plenty of other companies struggled to convert large user bases into dollars. This obviously wasn't all based on him. He had other people around him working on this stuff and it isn't right to attribute all company success to the CEO. The metaverse play was obviously a legendary bust. But "he just got lucky" feels more like Myspace Tom than Zuckerberg in my mind. | | |
| ▲ | alpha_squared 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No one else is adding the context of where things were at the time in tech... > The instagram purchase felt insane at the time ($1b to share photos) but facebook was able to convert it into a moneymaking juggernaut in time for the flattened growth of their flagship application. Facebook's API was incredibly open and accessible at the time and Instagram was overtaking users' news feeds. Zuckerberg wasn't happy that an external entity was growing so fast and onboarding users so easily that it was driving more content to news feeds than built-in tools. Buying Instagram was a defensive move, especially since the API became quite closed-off since then. Your other points are largely valid, though. Another comment called the WhatsApp purchase "inspired", but I feel that also lacks context. Facebook bought a mobile VPN service used predominantly by younger smartphone users, Onavo(?), and realized the amount of traffic WhatsApp generated by analyzing the logs. Given the insight and growth they were monitoring, they likely anticipated that WhatsApp could usurp them if it added social features. Once again, a defensive purchase. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think we can really call the instagram purchase purely defense. They didn't buy it and then slowly kill it. They bought it and turned it into a product of comparable size to their flagship with sustained large investment. |
| |
| ▲ | librasteve 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Whatsapp was also an inspired move | | | |
| ▲ | stogot 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Buying competitors is not insane or a weird business practice. He was probably advised to do so by the competent people under him And what did he do to keep G+ from becoming a valid competitor? It killed itself. I signed up but there was no network effect and it kind of sucked. Google had a way of shutting down all their product attempts too | | |
| ▲ | smugma 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you read Internal Tech Emails (on X), you’ll see that he was the driving force behind the key acquisitions (successes as well as failures such as Snap). | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am also not saying that zuck is a prescient genius who is more capable than other CEOs. I am just saying that it doesn't seem correct to me to say that he is "a textbook case of somebody who got lucky once." |
| |
| ▲ | MrMember 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hate pretty much everything about Facebook but Zuckerberg has been wildly successful as CEO of a publicly traded company. The market clearly has confidence in his leadership ability, he effectively has had sole executive control of Facebook since it started and it's done very well for like 20 years now. | | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 5 days ago | parent [-] | | >has been wildly successful as CEO of a publicly traded company. That has a lot to do with the fact that it's a business centric company. His acumen has been in user growth, monetization of ads, acquisitions and so on. He's very similar to Altman. The problems start when you try to venture into hard technological topics, like the Metaverse fiasco, where you have to have a sober and engineering oriented understanding of the practical limits of technology, like Carmack who left Meta pretty frustrated. You can't just bullshit infinitely when the tech and not the sales matter. Contrast it with Gates who had a serious programming background, he never promised even a fraction of the cringe worthy stuff you hear from some CEOs nowadays because he would have known it's nonsense. Or take Apple, infinitely more sane on the AI topic because it isn't just a "more users, more growth, stonks go up" company. |
|
| |
| ▲ | arcticbull 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He's really not. Facebook is an extremely well run organization. There's a lot to dislike about working there, and there's a lot to dislike about what they do, but you cannot deny they have been unbelievably successful at it. He really is good at his job, and part of that has been making bold bets and aggressively cutting unsuccessful bets. | | |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Facebook can be well run without that being due to Zuck. There are literally books that make this argument from insider perspectives (which doesn't mean it's true, but it is possible, and does happen regularly). A basketball team can be great even if their coach sucks. You can't attribute everything to the person at the top. | | |
| ▲ | smugma 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That is true but in Meta’s case, it is tightly managed by him. I remember a decade ago a friend was a mid-level manager and would have exec reviews to Zuck, who could absorb information very quickly and redirect feedback to align with his product strategy. He is a very hands CEO, not one who is relying on experts to run things for him. In contrast, I’ve heard that Elon has a very good senior management team and they sort of know how to show him shiny things that he can say he’s very hands on about while they focus on what they need to do. | |
| ▲ | Jensson 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | He created the company, if it is well run it was thanks to him hiring the right people. Regardless how you slice it he is a big reason it didn't fail, most companies like that fails when they scale up and hire a lot of people but facebook didn't, hiring the right people is not luck. |
| |
| ▲ | rs186 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | hmm... Oculus Quest something something. | | |
| ▲ | Esophagus4 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I can’t tell if you’re being tongue in cheek or not, so I’ll respond as if you mean this. It’s easy to cherry pick a few bets that flopped for every mega tech company: Amazon has them, Google has them, remember Windows Phone? etc. I see the failures as a feature, not a bug - the guy is one of the only founder CEOs to have ever built a $2T company (trillion with a T). I imagine part of that is being willing to make big bets. And it also seems like no individual product failure has endangered their company’s footing at all. While I’m not a Meta or Zuck fan myself, using a relatively small product flop as an indication a $2T tech mega corp isn’t well run seems… either myopic or disingenuous. | | |
| ▲ | rs186 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Parent comment says "aggressively cutting unsuccessful bets" and Oculus is nothing like that. Oculus Quest are decent products, but a complete flop compared to their investment and Zuck's vision of the metaverse. Remember they even renamed the company? You could say they're on betting on the long run, but I just don't see that happening in 5 or even 10 years. As an owner of Quest 2 and 3, I'd love to be proven wrong though. I just don't see any evidence of this would change any time soon. | | |
| ▲ | patapong 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The VR venture can also be seen as a huge investment in hard tech and competency around issues such as location tracking and display tech for creating AI-integrated smartglasses, which many believe is the next gen AI interface. Even if the current headsets or form factor do not pay off, I think having this knowledge coud be very valuable soon. | |
| ▲ | Esophagus4 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think their “flops” of Oculus or Metaverse have endangered their company in any material way, judging by their stock’s performance and the absurd cash generating machine they have. Even if they aren’t great products or just wither into nothing, I don’t think we will be see a HBS case study in 20 years saying, “Meta could have been a really successful company, but were it for their failure in these two product lines” |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | thrown-0825 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | laughs in metaverse | | |
| ▲ | arcticbull 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Absolutely, not everything they do will succeed but that's okay too, right? At this point their core products are used by 1 in 2 humans on earth. They need to get people to have more kids to expand their user base. They're gonna throw shit at the wall and not everything will stick, and they'll ship stuff that's not quite done, but they do have to keep trying; I can't bring myself to call that "failure." | | |
| ▲ | thrown-0825 5 days ago | parent [-] | | their core product IS 1 of 2 humans on earth. the product is used by advertisers to sell stuff to those humans. | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent [-] | | So you're saying the ad revenue sort of allows them to "be their own bank?" Then they can bankroll their own new entrepreneurial ideas risk-free, essentially. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | billy99k 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You laugh, but the Oculus is amazing. I use it as part of my daily workouts. | | |
| ▲ | rs186 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree, but that does not make Oculus a commercially successful and viable product. They are still bleeding cash on it, and VR is not going mainstream any time soon. | |
| ▲ | thrown-0825 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | fuck oculus and lucky palmer. I have hundreds of hours building and tinkering on the original kickstarter kit and then they sold to FB and shut down all the open source stuff. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | breitling 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be fair, buying Instagram so early + WhatsApp were great moves too. | | |
| ▲ | beagle3 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But they were less “skill” and more “surveillance”. He had very good usage statistics (which he shouldn’t have had) of these apps through Onavo - a popular VPN app Facebook bought for the purpose of spying on what users are doing outside Facebook. | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Instagram was acquired before Onavo. | | |
| ▲ | beagle3 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That’s true, but I remember rumors at the time that Onavo already supplied analytics to FB at the time of instagram purchase. Google gave me a paywalled link to FTCWatch that supposedly has the details, but I can’t check. | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they did supply data to FB (under the same contracts as everyone else). However, it was only supplied to the sales org, not the product org. FB acquired IG because it was blowing up in SF and MZ (other leaders too) were looking at how quickly it appeared to be growing and how good it was. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tempusalaria 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | WhatsApp is certainly worth less today than what they paid for it plus the extra funding it has required over time. Let alone producing anything close to ROI. Has lost them more money than the metaverse stuff. Insta was a huge hit for sure but since then Meta Capital allocation has been a disaster including a lot of badly timed buybacks | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Typically when a company is flush with cash, acquisitions become an obvious place to put that money. |
| |
| ▲ | sumedh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Except a company like Google with all its billions could not compete with Facebook. o Mark did something right. | | |
| ▲ | spicyusername 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Or it's really hard to overcome network effects, no matter how good your product is. | | |
| ▲ | sumedh 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You can do a lot of things with billion dollars and when you have the biggest email service. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > IMHO Mark Zuckerberg is a textbook case of someone who got lucky once by basically being in the right place at the right time, but who attributes his success to his skill. It is no secret that the person who turned Facebook into a money-printing machine is/was Sheryl Sandberg. Thus, the evidence is clear that Mark Zuckerberg had the right idea at the right time (the question is whether this was because of his skills or because he got lucky), but turning his good idea(s) into a successful business was done by other people (lead by Sheryl Sandberg). | | |
| ▲ | Esophagus4 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And isn’t the job of a good CEO to put the right people in the right seats? So if he found a superstar COO that took the company into the stratosphere and made them all gazillionaires… Wouldn’t that indicate, at least a little bit, a great management move by Zuck? | |
| ▲ | apwell23 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it wasn't sheryl | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Who was it then? | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It was YOU! As an IC, remember: you're one of the most valuable assets at Meta! Without you, we couldn't build cool products like... etc. etc. |
|
| |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, there's also a reason the board hasn't ousted him. |
| |
| ▲ | konart 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >IMHO Mark Zuckerberg is a textbook case of someone who got lucky once by basically being in the right place at the right time How many people also where at the right place and right time and were lucky then went bankrupt or simply never made it this high? | |
| ▲ | MagicMoonlight 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And he didn't even come up with the idea, he stole it all. And then he stole the work from the people he started it with... | | |
| ▲ | alex1138 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You're probably going to get comments like "Social networking existed before. You can't steal it". Well, on top of derailing someone else's execution of said non-stole idea (or something) which makes you a jerk, in the case of those he 'stole'/stole from, for starters maybe it was existing code (I don't know if that was ever proven), but maybe it was also the Winklevosses idea of using .edu email addresses, and possibly other concepts Do I think he stole it? Dunno. (Though Aaron Greenspan did log his houseSYSTEM server requests, which seems pretty damning) But given what he's done since (Whatsapp, copying every Snapchat feature)? I'd say the likelihood is non-zero |
| |
| ▲ | thrance 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The term you're looking for is "billionaire". The amount of serendipity in these guys' lives is truly baffling, and only becomes more apparent the more you dig. It makes sense when you realize their fame is all survivorship bias. Afer all, there must be someone at the tail end of the bell curve. | |
| ▲ | mrweasel 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is at least a little suspicious that one week he's hiring like crazy, then next week, right after Sam Altman states that we are in an AI bubble, Zuckerberg turns around and now fears the bubble. Maybe he's just gambling that Altman is right, saving his money for now and will be able to pick up AI researcher and developers at a massive discount next year. Meta doesn't have much of a presence in the space market right now, and they have other businesses, so waiting a year or two might not matter. | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You have to assume they all have each other's phone numbers, right? |
| |
| ▲ | bitexploder 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ehh. You don’t get FB to where it is by being incompetent. Maybe he is not the right leader for today. Maybe. But you have to be right way, way more often than not to create a FB and get it to where it is. To operate from where it started to where it is just isn’t an accident or Dunning-Kruger. |
|
|
| ▲ | zpeti 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe this time the top posters on HN should stop criticizing one of the top performing founder CEOs of the last 20 years who built an insane business, made many calls that were called stupid at the time (WhatsApp), and many that were actually stupid decisions. Like do people here really think making some bad decisions is incompetence? If you do, your perfectionism is probably something you need to think about. Or please reply to me with your exact perfect predictions of how AI will play out in the next 5, 10, 20 years and then tell us how you would run a trillion dollar company. Oh and please revisit your comment in these timeframes |
| |
| ▲ | brokencode 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think many people just really dislike Zuckerberg as a human being and Meta as a company. Social media has seriously damaged society in many ways. It’s not perfectionism, it’s a desire to dunk on what you don’t like whenever the opportunity arises. | | |
| ▲ | butlike 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's an entertainment tool. Like a television or playstation. Only a fool would think social media is anything more. | | |
| ▲ | brokencode 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but society is full of fools. Plenty of people say social media is the primary way they get news. Social media platforms are super spreaders of lies and propaganda. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rgavuliak 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think it's about perfect predictions. It's more about going all in on Metaverse and then on AI and backtracking on both. As a manager you need to use your resources wisely, even if they're as big as what Meta has at its disposal. The other thing - Peter's principle is that people rise until they hit a level where they can't perform anymore. Zuck is up there as high as you can go, maybe no one is really ready to operate at that level? It seems both him and Elon made a lot of bad decisions lately. It doesn't erase their previous good decisions, but possibly some self-reflection is warranted? | |
| ▲ | piva00 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Like do people here really think making some bad decisions is incompetence? > If you do, your perfectionism is probably something you need to think about. > Or please reply to me with your exact perfect predictions of how AI will play out in the next 5, 10, 20 years and then tell us how you would run a trillion dollar company. It's the effect of believing (and being sold) meritocracy, if you are making literal billions of dollars for your work then some will think it should be spotless. Not saying I think that way but it's probably what a lot of people consider, being paid that much signals that your work should be absolutely exceptional, big failures just show they are also normal flawed people so perhaps they shouldn't be worth million times more than other normal flawed people. | | |
| ▲ | zpeti 5 days ago | parent [-] | | He’s not “being paid that much” He’s earned almost all his money through owning part of a company that millions of shareholders think is worth trillions, and does in fact generate a lot of profits. A committee didn’t decide Zuckerberg is paid $30bn. And id say his work is pretty exceptional. If it wasn’t then his company wouldn’t be growing. And he’d probably be pressured into resigning as CEO | | |
| ▲ | piva00 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I do know all of that semantics, thanks for stating the obvious. Being rewarded for creating a privacy destroying advertising empire, exceptional work. Imagine a world where the incentives were a bit different, we might have seen other kind of work rewarded instead of social media and ads. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | baq 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| By signing too many 250mil contracts. |
| |
| ▲ | roxolotl 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well that’s the incompetent piece. Setting out to write giant historical employment contracts without a plan is not something competent people do. And seemingly it’s not that they over extended a bit either since reports claimed the time availability of the contracts was extremely limited; under 30min in some cases. | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes. Perhaps it was this: Lets hit the market fast, scoop up all the talent we can before anybody can react, then stop. I don't think there is anybody that would expect they would 'continue' offering 250million packages. They would need to stop eventually. They just did it fast, all at once, and now stopped. |
| |
| ▲ | vasco 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or enough of them! >= |
|
|
| ▲ | dist-epoch 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > How do you go from 250mil contracts to freezes in under a month? Easy, you finished building up a team. You can only have so many cooks. |
| |
| ▲ | rco8786 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not really how that works in the corporate/big tech world. It's not as though Meta set out and said "Ok we're going to hire exactly 150 AI engineers and that will be our team and then we'll immediately freeze our recruiting efforts". | |
| ▲ | apwell23 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | how tf do you know when you are "finished" |
|
|
| ▲ | bluelightning2k 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some people actually accepted the contracts before the uno reverse llamabot could activate and block them |
|
| ▲ | iLoveOncall 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm still waiting for a single proof that there was any contract in the hundreds of millions that was signed. |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The damage is already done though. If I worked for Meta and did not get millions, I think I would be pretty irate. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | mlinhares 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why are you assuming the investors are competent? |
|
| ▲ | andrepd 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, people who struck it rich are not miraculously more intelligent or capable. Seems obvious, but many people believe they are. |
|
| ▲ | blibble 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| don't forget the 115th Rule of Acquisition greed IS eternal |
|
| ▲ | ludicrousdispla 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because you want the ability to low-ball prospective candidates sooner rather than later. |
|
| ▲ | deadbabe 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could they get their money back? |
|
| ▲ | Lalabadie 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is Meta, named after the fact that the Metaverse is undoubtedly what comes next. |
|
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So he be also read the recent article on Sam Altman saying it was a bubble? |
|
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |