> This comes as disappointing news, as we've all built strong connections with our fellow Hackeronies.

Sorry my little Hackeronie. I'm afraid I'll be firing you now.

You're just another Johnnie Hackeronie now...

Hacky Doodle went to VCs

“make it lean and bony”

Fired 12% of staff

And called them hackeronies

Does anyone else feel weird about these terms used for employees. Hackeronis, Twittarians, Redditites, coinbese?

I don't mind them. Some feel more forced than others. That said, there's a time and a place to use them. A layoff announcement is possibly the worst place to use them, perhaps second to a death announcement. "Today we are devastated to announce that longtime Hackeronie Phil Sludge has lost his battle to colon cancer."

Many years ago one my colleague remarked that HR appears to be a progression on a career arc from summer camp supervisors.

Slightly, it feels... hivemind-y? Working at a company I identify most with my direct colleagues/team, less so with wider orgs. Feels comparable to what I felt during high school "pep rallies".

Hackeroni sounds like a pasta, and I'm sure I'd meme the shit out of it if I worked there

>I'm sure I'd meme the shit out of it if I worked there

I would do the same till they fire me.

Thanks for clarifying. I was thinking of it as a Pizza topping.

I keep picturing pepperoni... but ground meat is probably not they imagery they hoped for.

That seems like the point of the company demonym, got to drink that kool aid. What I find personality disingenuous (or perhaps even insidious) is the push to make everyone feel like they are an integral part of a group and then treat them like disposable objects when it’s more convenient at that moment.

Exactly. When I work, I work for myself; for money and mental stability. A company-wide identity feels like something I can't accept calling myself. It's too broad, vague, and the identity itself is defined/controlled by the company/HR, with little input from those labelled as such (at least in the orgs of size I've been at). It removes a lot of individuality from my own thoughts/mind, as I would have to consider "how I reflect on the organization" (as I was taught in Catholic school) to the detriment of my own expression.

Not weird but I do think they’re embarrassing, degrading, insufferable.

I'd be far less offended if you told me to fuck off than if you called me a Hackeroni.

I feel like a Hackeroni gets cooked in a pot with some bolognese

Hackeroni and cheese?

Infantilizing for sure.

Yes. It's in line with "our company is a family"... or at minimum "our company is a collective farm".

I'm not a Hackeroni or a Twittarian- I'm an adult individual who exchanges time and skill for money.

I get paid as long as I'm useful. When I stop being useful the company has no qualms about me not being a Hackeroni or a Twittarian anymore.

so you were never a Hackeroni at heart to begin with. Otherwise you would stay and work for free.

Fun for some, cultish for others.

There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with". A completely sterile work environment isn't really any better, and for some it's definitely oppressive and worse.

Is it sometimes an intentional cult-building tactic? Definitely. Is it always? Heck no, people come up with in-group names all the time. Groups of all kinds develop their own terms and memes and whatnot, it's normal.

> There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with".

There’s a whole Earth between no fun and clown fiesta.

> There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with".

What? There is miles of middle ground there.

Such as?

Keep in mind you can't make anyone uncomfortable, because uncomfortable people come to internet forums and talk about being uncomfortable.

People vary a lot in what they accept. There may be plenty of room for you, but for everyone? I wish you luck.

You don't see the middle ground between "make no one uncomfortable" and "make everyone uncomfortable?" It seems to me you're viewing this completely in black and white and then insisting that it really is black and white in actual reality, when in fact what you need is a better TV.

(To strain the turn of phrase to its breaking point.)

e: I mean, shit, even in the false dichotomy of "make no one uncomfortable" and "make everyone uncomfortable" there is middle ground: making everyone a little bit uncomfortable vs making everyone extremely uncomfortable.

No, I'm saying that hackeronies does not make everyone uncomfortable / is not necessarily cult indoctrination. Stuff like that can and does arise naturally in groups of people (and can also arise as a control mechanism).

You're saying there are pure non-creepy fun actions for everyone that a business can do. I'm saying it's too gray to make that assertion, not too black and white. So I'm curious what you think is perfectly safe for everyone.

Note that I'm reading 'There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with",' as a general assertion on your part - now I'm thinking maybe that's not what you meant. In that case some of what I said might not apply.

that said:

> You're saying there are pure non-creepy fun actions for everyone that a business can do.

I didn't say that. I don't think you'll please everyone with team-building exercises and frankly some people find the entire concept distasteful which is fair enough. That doesn't mean that all team-building stuff is equally bad (or, equally good).

We're probably on the same page then. And I completely agree that there are better and worse options.

I mean that "fun harmless in-crowd things" can be disturbing from the outside - context and intent matters. A strange in-crowd name is pretty far down the "there are harmless causes for this" side of things imo. Using it in a layoff announcement is probably not the best place though, unless they honestly think the laid-off feel good about it. A large enough package might achieve that tbh, but that's obviously rarely the case.

I'm honestly not sure if there exists a thing that a business can do that its employees would enjoy that will not be interpreted as creepy by some. Everything excludes someone somewhere somehow, the most you can do is target your crowd as best you can... and people commenting on a forum are not in that target audience, so I find the obsession over the name here to be pretty dumb. (Not claiming you're obsessed, just that it's the majority of the comments here so far)

I find it ok if the origin comes from ICs and used among ICs (still kinda weird, but less so)

It's when execs use it that it becomes idiotic and insufferable.

Largely depends on the existing culture of the company imo. I imagine in some climates it might come off as tone-deaf or degrading, whereas in others it might feel unifying or endearing.

From an outsider looking in on this one... I dunno. Firing your beloved hackeronies kind of grates.

Even the most non-objectionable term is going to sound tone-deaf in the context of layoffs. Just use the word "colleague" and keep it professional.

I don't know, every single layoff announcement on HN has this exact comment at the top of the comments, wonder if anyone else feels this way?

How do you feel about someone calling themselves a xoogler?

I'd assume if it's done seriously, about 85% chance that person is a douche.

In small groups and organic kinda thing that the individuals come up with is fine.

IBMer back in the day felt natural and inoffensive. But it was also pretty generic.

Organizations of even moderate size and it gets slapped on like a label on your forehead by management… and it starts to feel weird and insincere…. and as they trend towards cutie affectionate names it gets really creepy IMO.

Personally I prefer a little more professional disconnection.

> IBMer back in the day felt natural and inoffensive.

But "digit" to refer to DEC employees never really did.

Far worse than Redditites. They use the term Snoos for their employees from some leaked email that came out during the Reddit strike.

Founder conceit made manifest through a culture of overwrought branding & marketing? Workforce infantalization? Former summer camp coordinators turned HR executives?

"Demonym" is a fun vocab word for these kinds of labels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym

Every group of people creates some name to call themselves.

That said, management should really not be using those names.

> Every group of people creates some name to call themselves.

That's not so. I haven't actually worked for a company where the employees call themselves any kind of special name.

Yes. I'm curious why companies do it.

I never pushed back on it because I figured I'd just come across as a killjoy.

dont forget metamates

Not really. They have a “cutsie” name for us at the company I work for too. I find it endearing :)

yeah its cult shit

This is accurate. Culture starts with cult.

Feels like harmless fun to me

Sure but not in a layoff message. He could just as well do a crying smiley too.

You can use Foo Corpians in like a invite to the yearly softball game.

In situations like these it gives psychopath vibes.

Ah yes, you're right, definitly not in the layoff message

No, it's part of how you show culture. I think Hackeronies is the best/most ridiculous I've heard.

I always say "____ employees" or "____ team members" because that's the culture of where I work.

> it's part of how you show culture.

I show I'm part of the culture by working well with my team. What more is really needed?

Any number of things. It’s up to the company and its employees.

It's no weirder than Linux users sporting Tux (the penguin) logos and getting excited about Linux desktop marketshare or Rust advocates referring to themselves as rustaceans. People are tribal.

You can't be fired from Linux, and if you contribute to the codebase, you do own it under the terms of the GPLv2. (Idk if Linux does copyright assignment but even if they do, it's still GPL).

Whereas a company can tell you to fuck off for literally no reason, give you nothing, and shove you out onto the street with no healthcare and no salary, and then sue you if you if you try to do anything about it.

"Twittarians" sounds lofty, a knowledgeable group. "Redditites" sounds like a mob, possibly armed with sticks. "Coinbese" sounds... like a mindless herd? But "Hackeronis" is just patronising, considering their audience why are they not simply "Hackers"? That can't be a bad word in their context!

Human brains are wired for kinship relationships. There are studies that find that just assigning people to random groups activates in-group/out-group dynamics. There's no wonder corporate HR wants to plug into this wiring and use it to improve group cohesion and morale.

We're not like old, stodgy companies. We're cool and fun!

> lays off swaths of workers unceremoniously

> cuts back on perks

> bans political topics and other non-work conversation

> starts rigorously evaluating employees, "it's not stack ranking" but it's just as bad

Hang on, maybe old school professional office culture had a reason... To make people focus on work.

> bans political topics

Boy, I sure wish that my current employer banned such conversations in the workplace. They make things really tense and uncomfortable.

Did this company name-based nickname for employees start from Google calling their employees Googlers in the early 2000s?

I don't think companies like Walmart, McDonalds, JPMorgan, etc have nicknames for their employees. Does anyone know when this all started?

I got my first job at IBM in 1994. We definitely got called us IBMers at that time, although it was typically used informally, not in layoff notifications.

At my first job in 1994, at a grocery chain of all places, they just called us "associates". Professional and to the point. I don't understand this desire to brand my association with a company. It's really weird.

No, it predates Google by at least several decades. But in the Olden Times, these were usually in engineering companies, and came from the employees themselves. Engineers having a laugh, and making a bit of fun of their employer.

At some point, though, some companies started adopting such language in official communications. In my opinion, that's when it becomes cringe.

They really missed the opportunity for HackerOnesies.

There's probably some HN reader that already scooped up the hackeronesies.com domain and is currently making several thousand per month selling programming-themed baby clothing :)

> Hackeronie

Not even an iota of professionalism.

Should’ve written the firing letter in the following style:

> Hackeronie, I'm vewy sowwy to infowm yu dat due to cuwwent economic challenges, ouw company has been facing diffwicult times. As a wesult, we have to make some hawd decisions, and unfowtunately, we need to wetch yu go.

> We tweasuwe youw contwibutions and effowts to the company, but fow ouw sustenance, we must wemode ouw stwuctuwe. Pwease know dis decision was not made lightly, and it in no way wefwects yu peawsonally.

> We hope yu undewstand the situation and yuw suwvivaw as well. We wish yu the best in finding new oppowtunities, and if ouw conditions impwove in the futuwe, we would be mowe than happy to weconsider yuw. Thanyu fow yuw time with us, Hackeronie. OwO

An owo in a firing letter, ooohhh noooo.

*notices your lack of employment*

Hackeronie pasta merch. Heard it here first

The Godfather has over cooked the Hackeronie and made a bologna out of the company. Unfortunately we need to to dissolve 12% of our Hackeronie brothers and sisters in sulphuric spaghetti sauce to hide the incompetence of the Chief Hackeronie Officer.

The employees of corporations should have at least as many voting rights over the executive decision making process as the shareholders and investors in the corporations do.

That's just basic logic.

“Hackeronies” kill me.

And why not just go with _hackers_?

Zoomer culture. Old farts won’t understand.

The obtrusive chat bot pop up on the site that makes a sound is why I hate the current state of frontend design/ux.

Firefox lets you disable those sounds.

Also they are changing their name to Hacker0.88

Maybe `< HackerOne`

I hope you take responsibility for you statements and wipe this coffee off my screen .. just like their CEO said he will for his actions.

Gotta get that white power following somehow I guess?

We can check the Layoff Message Bingo square for having a cringey cutsie name for employees,

> strong connections with our fellow Hackeronies

You're the second person in this thread to misspell "cutesie" like this... or is "cutsie" a regional spelling I'm not aware of, or another word altogether?

Don’t forget: cutesy!

I've spelled it that way (and have seen it spelled that way) my whole life, but your comment made me look it up. I could only find it in one place:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cutsie

But my use of it predates the internet. I suspect this is a regionalism.

A company is not family.

A company is not your friend.

To quote Bob Seger:

"I used her, she used me but neither one cared We were gettin' our share" - Night Moves

That is a corporate relationship. Nothing wrong with it. But always keep it in context... if ya ain't getting your share, go get it elsewhere.

Completely agree with this, but at the same time there is something deeply dysfunctional about our mercenary attitude toward our work relationships. For any given individual I think they have no choice to approach it this way, but I do hope we eventually land somewhere a little healthier, as a culture.

> but at the same time there is something deeply dysfunctional about our mercenary attitude toward our work relationships.

Mercenary attitude is the healthiest attitude there is. It’s not hypocritical, it’s not elusive it’s what it is.

In the context of our current work culture, yes I think I agree with that. But I think that's a symptom of how dysfunctional our current work culture is.

Even in context of an ideal world where people work for ideas, not money, it should be acceptable to have mercenary attitude. We’re all different, after all, but we should respect each other’s motivations.

> dysfunctional our current work culture is

Can you tell us more?

Nobody is happy with the relationship between employee and employer being adversarial.

It's just a consequence of what each person wants out of the relationship. The employer wants to extract as much labor as possible for the minimum price. The employee wants to extract the maximum price for minimum labor.

Many employers have an unrealistic expectation that their employees will have the same passion as they do about the product/company. What makes it especially heinous is that the employer will become wealthy off the labor of the employees, and then be upset when the employees want a piece of the pie.

Work is just a transactional relationship. I need money, they need workers, that's all there is to it. It ends if I find better money elsewhere, or they no longer need workers.

It is a bit more nuanced than that, on both sides, you should always look at the full situation.

There's many things, like stability, and how the firm treats you that SHOULD be considered. But they should be considered, as benefits, and given a value.

I faced this on my last job search. I ended up declining a FAANG to goto a small firm. No regrets when the FAANG laid off a few months later like I predicted they would.

... Always watch out for yourself. Money isn't the only thing that matters. Relationships matter etc.

But as always: Business, is business, nothing personal.

Fair. Having coworkers I like is really important to me. And benefits like insurance have an actual dollar value.

I have personal relationships with my coworkers, even with my boss; just not with the company itself.

In reality: I am not that mercenary. Nor is the man in the song.

They both know the rules... and they both are enjoying the profits.

If a company wants to make a major commitment to me, I commit back. But note: commitments come in the form of money and actions. Not talk.

If the company wants to have a fling... I consult by the hour too. :)

What's dysfunctional about it? An employee-employer relationship is a business one, after all.

>Hackeronies

That’s a big red flag in any company when they start labeling their employees like that.

Can you imagine sitting down to write an email announcing a layoff and deciding that opening with "H1" in place of "Hi" and calling people "Hackeronies" would be a great, culture-preserving idea? It's an extremely serious email and for the CEO to have not thought twice about whether this time he should just write "Hi" and refer to people as "our coworkers" says a lot about his state of mind.

I'm pretty sure H1 Team is short for HackerOne Team, not Hi Team

It’s all a joke, you know? Oppsie woopsie, we made a boo boo.

> It is expected that the reorganization will also affect employees in the U.K., the Netherlands, and other countries. After completing the relevant consultation proceedings, we will be able to inform all people involved with more detail. These processes will take longer.

Translation: we can't just dump people from one day too the next in these countries because of worker protection laws.

And thank god for it. As far as I know it’s near impossible to drop someone in the Netherlands without providing proof that employee did some weird stuff.

It is also possible for economic reasons like reorganizations, but still, those will need a valid reason, and severence packages are mandatory. Just sacking people who don't have a temporary contract is impossible.

This happened in a company my friend works at. He’s based in the Netherlands, but the company had a lot of US workers as well. When it came time for the layoffs, only the latter got dumped.

> Hackeronies

This stuff is just so bizarrely funny at this point it feels like a self-aware postmodern joke.

huh. no substantive comments yet. overreaction to “hackeronies”. i like cute names like that. it also rubs the salt in the wound during a layoff so i further enjoy the irony.

does this mean the pentest industry as a whole is in decline? or did h1 over invest and is having a hangover now? or are competitors starting to drink their milkshake? or is shift left working?

i do also wonder how this affects their downstream contractors. “flours” to be consistent with their employee naming scheme.

thanks

HackerOne is primarily a bug bounty company which is different from pentest (they offer that too but it's not well established). This is probably in response to other companies not having as big of budgets for bug bounty which no doubt took a hit with all these layoffs over the last year.

thanks. indeed i was using the term pentest very loosely, too loosely.