Anon isn't a Microsoft fan
-
Hiring a third of linkedin would cause even Saudi oil to go bankrupt.
don't worry, their stock offerings - like all the cuts - won't vest and will all return to the mothership.
now fire this thread
-
It’s called “number go up”. Every quarter, all the time, until the heat death of the universe. Extremely sustainable
That's a good book! Fascinating that the author was hoping to write about the rise and fall of Tether, but it never quite fell, so he ended up with the climax being SBF's downfall
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think it is an actual business tactic. I thi k they're buying up good devs so they won't be bought up by other companies who might use them to make bank.
-
I think it is an actual business tactic. I thi k they're buying up good devs so they won't be bought up by other companies who might use them to make bank.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Layoffs also look good to investors (so consider this from the point of a roughly human-shaped scum-sucking parasite) on financial reports because we need to cut costs, those filthy little humans never deliver anything and only cost us money, they need to go.
-
I think it is an actual business tactic. I thi k they're buying up good devs so they won't be bought up by other companies who might use them to make bank.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Eh, I've had a number of coworkers who ended up working for Microsoft. They were all either terrible programmers or utterly unmotivated to do much actual work. One of them was a guy who did not show up even once at my company for more than a year but wasn't fired, for some unknown reason. Microsoft's inability to produce much of anything in the way of good software is no surprise to me.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with Microsoft's being one of the pioneers of TDD (Test-Driven Development). The idea is that you have a small number of good, experienced developers writing suites of automated tests, coupled with a large number of inexperienced or inept developers who try to write code that passes these tests. Whatever code happens to be good enough is kept and the rest is tossed away. In this model, there is some advantage to sheer numbers even when most of the people you're hiring are pretty terrible at what they do (although these are exactly the kind of employees that can be - and are being - easily replaced by AI).
It's funny to imagine real-world engineering using an approach such as this. Like, imagine a world where they let anybody off the street attempt to build bridges, while the experienced civil engineers spend their time trying to knock them down. You might get a few bridges that actually worked, but your rivers would be clogged with the remains of all the failures.
-
every week, MS announces record profits, cuts devs by the thousands.
Call of Duty is doing gangbusters? Fire a bunch.
Ho-lee-sheeeeeit that remastered hot garbage Oblivion rejiggering is selling like HOTCAKES! Aw yiss, fire a shitload of them.
Maintain dominance, fire some people.
Oh fuck, let's spend a shitfuckton on AI! That's always profitable! And fire some devs.
Oh shit it's a day that ends in -Y? FIRE 'EM UP.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck we fired too many people, hire a third of linked-in.
Then fire most of 'em.
The why is really simple. The regular cuts are to keep salaries low by keeping the job market flush with candidates so salaries are suppressed across MS’s competitors too.
-
I’m so happy my early alpha forever Minecraft Mojang account I tried to log into a couple weeks ago is DELETED ENTIRELY because I didn’t tie it into a Microsoft bullshit account before an arbitrary point THANK YOU MICROSOFT I WILL DEFINITELY INSTALL WINDOWS 11 EVER
-
Eh, I've had a number of coworkers who ended up working for Microsoft. They were all either terrible programmers or utterly unmotivated to do much actual work. One of them was a guy who did not show up even once at my company for more than a year but wasn't fired, for some unknown reason. Microsoft's inability to produce much of anything in the way of good software is no surprise to me.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with Microsoft's being one of the pioneers of TDD (Test-Driven Development). The idea is that you have a small number of good, experienced developers writing suites of automated tests, coupled with a large number of inexperienced or inept developers who try to write code that passes these tests. Whatever code happens to be good enough is kept and the rest is tossed away. In this model, there is some advantage to sheer numbers even when most of the people you're hiring are pretty terrible at what they do (although these are exactly the kind of employees that can be - and are being - easily replaced by AI).
It's funny to imagine real-world engineering using an approach such as this. Like, imagine a world where they let anybody off the street attempt to build bridges, while the experienced civil engineers spend their time trying to knock them down. You might get a few bridges that actually worked, but your rivers would be clogged with the remains of all the failures.
My biggest issue with this kind of "TDD" is, you pay two people to write the same code twice. Test-driven can work if done correctly, but this just stupid.
-
I’m so happy my early alpha forever Minecraft Mojang account I tried to log into a couple weeks ago is DELETED ENTIRELY because I didn’t tie it into a Microsoft bullshit account before an arbitrary point THANK YOU MICROSOFT I WILL DEFINITELY INSTALL WINDOWS 11 EVER
It was a pure money grab to not have done this for everyone automatically. I lost my Minecraft copy too because of this. But no way in hell I'm going to give them the satisfaction of buying it again.. I had it since the Minecraft beta/early access(?) too..
-
Eh, I've had a number of coworkers who ended up working for Microsoft. They were all either terrible programmers or utterly unmotivated to do much actual work. One of them was a guy who did not show up even once at my company for more than a year but wasn't fired, for some unknown reason. Microsoft's inability to produce much of anything in the way of good software is no surprise to me.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with Microsoft's being one of the pioneers of TDD (Test-Driven Development). The idea is that you have a small number of good, experienced developers writing suites of automated tests, coupled with a large number of inexperienced or inept developers who try to write code that passes these tests. Whatever code happens to be good enough is kept and the rest is tossed away. In this model, there is some advantage to sheer numbers even when most of the people you're hiring are pretty terrible at what they do (although these are exactly the kind of employees that can be - and are being - easily replaced by AI).
It's funny to imagine real-world engineering using an approach such as this. Like, imagine a world where they let anybody off the street attempt to build bridges, while the experienced civil engineers spend their time trying to knock them down. You might get a few bridges that actually worked, but your rivers would be clogged with the remains of all the failures.
I've never heard TDD described like this. I cannot even understand how this works from a project standpoint.
"We need a new feature. Todd's written the test already, so everyone just have at it with your fastest implementation; whoever passes first, gets to go to prod!"
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Extend Embrace Extinguish
Such efficiency, they're now skipping extend because it takes competency and straight going from embrace (purchase) to exterminate (shut down).
-
Yeah, they are making games, though usually at the cost of the devs they bought
-
I've never heard TDD described like this. I cannot even understand how this works from a project standpoint.
"We need a new feature. Todd's written the test already, so everyone just have at it with your fastest implementation; whoever passes first, gets to go to prod!"
Reminds me of MCMC sampling, or straight up rejection sampling.
-
Make shareholders happy.
The inhuman monoliths.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Control but also opportunity
-
Speaking of, hope ToW2 has a longer campaign.
-
Eh, I've had a number of coworkers who ended up working for Microsoft. They were all either terrible programmers or utterly unmotivated to do much actual work. One of them was a guy who did not show up even once at my company for more than a year but wasn't fired, for some unknown reason. Microsoft's inability to produce much of anything in the way of good software is no surprise to me.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with Microsoft's being one of the pioneers of TDD (Test-Driven Development). The idea is that you have a small number of good, experienced developers writing suites of automated tests, coupled with a large number of inexperienced or inept developers who try to write code that passes these tests. Whatever code happens to be good enough is kept and the rest is tossed away. In this model, there is some advantage to sheer numbers even when most of the people you're hiring are pretty terrible at what they do (although these are exactly the kind of employees that can be - and are being - easily replaced by AI).
It's funny to imagine real-world engineering using an approach such as this. Like, imagine a world where they let anybody off the street attempt to build bridges, while the experienced civil engineers spend their time trying to knock them down. You might get a few bridges that actually worked, but your rivers would be clogged with the remains of all the failures.
Is it well known that this is how Microsoft practices TDD? Because that’s not the normal practice for TDD. TDD just means you write tests first, but normally the same person writes the tests and then makes them pass.
-
Somewhere along the way we built a system that doesn't actually require you to do or make anything. And that's been absolutely horrible.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It was Jack Welch, and it was during the 1980s 'Yuppie', 'Greed is Good' era.
Fiduciary duty is cancerous in a way that has really accelerated Capitalism. It encourages businesses that would otherwise be entirely sustainable at a small size attempt to grow until they are incompetent, which causes a consistent breakdown/selloff cycle.
Imo this is a function of pensions being purposefully replaced with 401ks. It pinned more and more retirement funds to the performance of a stock market, ostensibly to encourage employees to feel staked in the company stock performance. But it was just a clever way to get away from direct-deposit pension funds.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Embrace, Extend and Extinguish...
Its a Microsoft strategy.
The studio I was just laid off from was super successful and Microsoft has now gutted it with the last layoffs. I don't think it'll be successful for that much longer, morale is now non existent and people don't want to work.
Business decisions made by C suites rarely make sense on the ground.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
