News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:"Much" of the Rust/Wasmtime team hit by layoffs at Mozilla by newen on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:28PM (#24147358)
Even when it is. This should be obvious. Not even sure why I'm spelling this out. Say total amount of money an organization has is $X + $Y. Group A is assigned $X in funding. Group B is assigned $Y in funding.

Group A gets $Z in donation with conditions attached so it only gets used by Group A.

Then the organization assigns $X - $Z funding to Group A and assigns $Y + $Z funding to Group B. Group A is happy because it still has $X from the donation and doesn't complain. Group B is happy because it can now spend $2.5 million on the CEO.

Re:"Much" of the Rust/Wasmtime team hit by layoffs at Mozilla by jlokier on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:51PM (#24147743)
Counterpoints, which I'm surprised I have to spell out, are:

1. Limits. The above doesn't apply when $Z > $X, above which the attachment has full effect.

2. Reputation. The sources of recurring $X + $Y have decision making powers with a time lag. They may not be willing to give $X + $Y again if they know it was entirely spent on group B last time.

3. Anticipation. Organization decision makers know 2. Which makes donations with conditions attached into a signal with some effect, rather than something freely fungible with no pressure.

If we were to plot a curve of notional pressure and effect on the organization's budgeting decisions, I would expect a curve increasing with the ratio $Z/($X+$Y). A very shallow curve perhaps. But not a flat zero in the range 0..$X as you are suggesting.

Re:"Much" of the Rust/Wasmtime team hit by layoffs at Mozilla by newen on Thursday August 13, 2020 @04:49PM (#24148864)
I simplified a lot obviously but an organizational can last years and years before seeing the effects of reputation pressure. And above applies fine even if $Z > $X modulo nitpicking.