[nozzlegear]

This announcement spends remarkably few words talking about the what (7% of the company's workforce was laid off), and a great deal of words talking about how bright the future of the company is and how they're going to hire more people.

[skeeter2020]

If you were realigning your SaaS company to ignore your technology short-comings and technical debt, and isntead focus on selling as much "AI-enabled <whatever>" while the rush still looks like gold, this would be a great strategy & announcement.

[brianwawok]

Tech debt is much less important than many developers think it is. More sales over chasing tech debt almost every time.

[bunderbunder]

I’ve seen many products die sudden, violent deaths due to unmanaged technical debt. If you have customers who care about quality and reliability, you simply cannot set up a false dichotomy between selling product and managing technical debt.

That said, I would also concede that over the past decade or two the clean code movement has made a damn strong effort of poisoning the term by trying to characterize technically inconsequential aesthetic concerns as technical debt.

[datsci_est_2015]

“Chasing tech debt” vs “more sales” is a false dichotomy. A dangerous one, too, if you simply expand “chasing tech debt” to “listening to engineering concerns”. That’s how you end up with a Boeing.

[dboreham]

Of course. But as an old sales guy used to tell me: "In the story, at the end the wolf shows up".

[mik3y]

Layoff announcements are this kinda tricky class of corporate comms where you need to speak to at least 3 different constituents, with 3 different messages, which are often in conflict.

It's something like:

(A) To the public (e.g. prospects, customers, investors): "This is a good thing and we're going to be an even better bet!"

(B) To the remaining team: "This is tough and I feel your pain and will do better."

(C) To the laid off: "It's not you, it's me, thank you and good luck."

It's hard if not impossible to handle all three of these authentically, concisely, and in the same message. Which is why you can almost immediately find something not to like..

[jorams]

There's really only a conflict between A and the rest, and that's because A is a lie. It's not a good thing, if it were they wouldn't have to say B and C.

They can try to do better and be hopeful, but they also fucked up big time. It's not like the public actually believes the lie, so stop telling it.

[jimt1234]

And all 3 messages have to be delivered within very strict legal guidelines, because someone's always gonna sue.

[cyanydeez]

which is why most corporations should be classified as sociopaths, at a minimum.

[yamillove]

The corporation actually gave them a job.

[blitzar]

Look at what they make you give

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Well, sort of. That anthropomorphizes them and allows the sociopaths running the corporations to pawn the responsibility of their decisions to the corporation, which is actually a legal fiction that is incapable of independent thought or expression.

[AngryData]

I c-suites were actually held responsible for the actions of the corporation I would agree, but I don't see that actually happening very wrong. It is so rare that when it does happen it will be in the news for months.

[calgoo]

They have already done that when giving companies right as people which then takes responsibility off the CEO.