A long expected update (probablistic programming langauge team laid off)

Re:A long expected update (probablistic programming langauge... by mikebenfield on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @06:05PM (#33809294)

I have no data to back this up, but if I had to bet I’d guess that the large majority of Meta employees - along with shareholders - are also strongly opposed to the company’s new focus.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A long expected update (probablistic programming langauge... by ericlippert on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @06:56PM (#33809913)

I do have data to back this up for employees. You'd win that bet. Shareholders, I have no data on that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A long expected update (probablistic programming langauge... by renewiltord on Thursday December 01, 2022 @04:24AM (#33814109)

That would be normal, wouldn't it? It's the classic example in The Innovator's Dilemma. The incumbent has a lot of pressures trying to keep it doing what it was doing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A long expected update (probablistic programming langauge... by i_like_apis on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @07:58PM (#33810711)

Well, there are plenty of talented engineers who would be happy to work on AR and VR …

You are off though. I know plenty of Meta people both inside and outside of the Reality Labs division and they love it.

No offense, but “I have no data to back this up, but … (shareholders and employees of a company I don’t have inside knowledge of think X)” is lame discourse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A long expected update (probablistic programming langauge... by mikebenfield on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @09:14PM (#33811403)

Well, there’s two different angles here. I also might really enjoy working in AR/VR, but I’m almost certain that heading this way is a catastrophically bad business decision for Meta and will likely lead to worse outcomes for most of its employees.

As for my comment being “lame discourse”, fair enough, but why does that apply to my comment and not the one I was replying to?

[ Parent | on HN ]