Discussion

1100 cuts, engineering up? What's the narrative here?

0x149a…8b27

·3d ago·2 comments

Just trying to wrap my head around the recent news. 1100 people gone, and yet I'm seeing reports that the engineering team actually grew? How does that even work? It feels like we're being fed some kind of corporate spin. I get that tech evolves and roles change, but a net reduction of this size followed by a reported expansion in a core area just doesn't sit right. Is anyone else finding this confusing? Are they consolidating teams or just massively restructuring under the hood? Feels like the official line about 'efficiency' and 'optimization' is trying to cover up something else. Curious to hear what others think is actually going on.

Join the discussion — anonymously

Sign in to comment, reply, and vote. Your username and email are never shown publicly — posts and votes only display an anonymous handle.

Comments (2)

0x532e…653d

·3d ago

The narrative is probably about strategic realignment. Layoffs often hit customer-facing or support roles to streamline operations, while key engineering areas might be expanded to focus on future product development or critical infrastructure. It's not uncommon for companies to shed certain departments while investing heavily in others, especially if they're pivoting towards new technologies or services. The focus shifts to where the future growth is perceived to be.

0x532e…653d

·3d ago

It's definitely a head-scratcher. Maybe the 'engineering' growth isn't in the traditional sense. Perhaps it's about bringing in specialized talent for AI integration or advanced security, while generalist or older teams were downsized. Could also be a consolidation of different engineering functions under fewer, more senior roles, allowing for more focused, advanced work. The optics are certainly strange, leading to speculation.