But to be fair, corporations need to say every single thing in a positive light or else media would savagely quote them. See what happens when somebody big admits openly making a mistake. They get punished. This stupidity destroys an honest society. Media and social media are evil forces.
We've got to get over this "all media bad" mentality. It's counterproductive and not helping anything. Sure, there are garbage media organizations publishing to maximize profits but there are also all kinds of organizations doing stellar journalism these days too. Also, "media" is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless.
> but there are also all kinds of organizations doing stellar journalism these days too
They just don't have any viewership.
It may be worth studying why and what can be done to fix this. But I bet one will get stuck with "it's because of government corruption" pretty soon and have no place to move from there.
Please stop dragging rest of humanity to your side, there is no "we" in your camp, and I agree with OP in the meaning of his/her words.
Its a net loss for humanity, as is all political correctness instead of objective truth which should always be pursued. Maybe a good idea on paper, but it failed to actually change anything or anybody, fringe people just got pushed into their own siloed groups and there is no coming back, thanx to 'media'.
Now with ie US elections of gradually in Europe too we saw and see how all fringe quietly became majority at the end.
Could you list few? I’ve stopped following media in general because everything I could find was profit maximisation through outrage and sensationalism. So I would really appreciate something that isn’t that.
Bezos pumped billions into Blue Origin and still lost to SpaceX. Maybe scaling down and running it like a startup would be better. I wonder if Bezos is still pumping billions into Blue Origin even now
They don't have much revenue. They're selling some engines to ULA, they have some government contracts and quite big commercial contracts for launches that haven't happened yet, so Bezos is surely still pumping money to pay for these 14000 employees and other expenses.
Aren't they ready to finally test a heavy rocket capable of orbit?
From the information they publish, it looks like stopping the race because you got tired just before the finish line. I wonder what part of the public information is false.
New Glenn has already reached orbit. Starship probably will soon (tests so far have been suborbital because they would be launches to LEO, which is dangerous if they can't be certain of controlled reentry. New Glenn launched to MEO which is safer because it won't be reentering.)
I think you're confused as to which side of the employer-employee struggle the media aligns itself with. All major news outlets are owned by the owning class, whose interests align with those of Bezos and other employers.
Recently, a member of the owning class did a literal actual Hitler salute on stage twice, and the closest the mass media came to calling a spade a spade was saying things like "alleged resemblance to a Roman salute".
It'a funny. I always thought of the ADL as having a hair-trigger, over-blaming. Then this happened and I can't figure out if they're just trying to survive? If they're more interested in protecting certain groups than others? Doesnt make sense.
Maybe it was, genuinely, too much excitement when saluting the crowd. It is obvious to me and I’m really surprised so many people were talked into believing it was anything else than a mistake.
If he really wanted to come out as a “Charlie Chapplin” fan, he would have repainted his brands in the associated colours.
Overexcitement leads to a Nazi salute? That's not a thing. That doesn't happen anywhere else or to anyone else. I'm really surprised so many people were talked into believing it was benign. Especially giving his stirring up the AfD, the modern German nazi party.
Are you just trying to bait people into political flamewars?
> Recently, a member of the owning class did a literal actual Hitler salute on stage twice, and the closest the mass media came to calling a spade a spade was saying things like "alleged resemblance to a Roman salute".
It took me literally 2 seconds to google for an example of mass media calling it a "Nazi salute". So you're basically just lying to promote your political agenda.
His claim is that nobody is calling at an "apparent Nazi salute". According to him, the MOST anyone is claiming is that it is an "apparent Roman salute". This is a lie, as multiple mainstream news outlets are in fact using the word "Nazi" as opposed to the word "Roman".
I may have misread the comment chain here, I thought others had already linked to articles referring to it as an apparent Nazi salute. That's my bad if I was mistaken here.
There are many references to it in major media outlets though, including this one [1] in the New York Times raising the fact that it was being referred to in strange ways like "Roman salute."
The headline was "Hitler dead", not "Hitler apparently dead". The headline was "Apartheid ended", not "Apartheid ended, allegedly". If a prime minister gets shot and dies, the headline's "prime minister murdered", not "prime minister possibly murdered" or "prime minister dies, possible connection to being shot beforehand".
The headline should be "Elon Musk does Hitler salute on stage", but it isn't. It should be a really big deal, but somehow, it isn't.
You're confusing what is probable fact and what requires intent.
I don't know what Elon's intentions are and wouldn't begin to guess. There is a huge difference, though, in being able to say factually that someone was murdered or that the legal system of apartheid ended and saying why you believe someone made a certain gesture.
Anyone could raise their arm and accidentally make a motion similar to a Nazi salute, hell I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few videos of John McCain making a similar gesture due to his shoulder injuries. Making that gesture doesn't make you a Nazi or it a Nazi salute, why you make that gesture is what decides that.
Alright, the guy retweeting eugenics and antisemitic replacement theory content, cozying up to a German neo-nazi party with prominent holocaust denying members threw a gesture twice that is exactly the same in shape and context as the Hitler salute, but we better give him the benefit of the doubt. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Do you see no difference in assuming intent from a physical gesture and factually stating someone is dead or a sociopolitical system has been officially ended?
I think you're replying to the wrong comment. The one you replied to doesn't mention headlines, but points to public knowledge pertaining to the opinions of Musk. If you want more: his family moved to South Africa because they _agreed_ with apartheid, and Musk is part of an administration that is setting up a concentration camp in Cuba, and advocates for the ethnic cleansing of people.
If I knew literally nothing else about Elon Musk other than him being a rich guy backing Trump, and saw him do that arm gesture on stage, I would assume 100% he's a Nazi. But knowing also other things about him, like the fact he enjoys trolling people on Twitter, or the fact he's autistic and sometimes does awkward things, it makes it more likely he intended to do something other than a Nazi salute.
If he was a literal Nazi, don't you think he would have done or said something more incriminating by now? The dude is on twitter shitposting 24/7, surely he would have said something about gassing the jews or whatnot.
> There is a huge difference, though, in being able to say factually that someone was murdered or that the legal system of apartheid ended and saying why you believe someone made a certain gesture.
The poster said "Elon Musk does Hitler salute on stage" should have been the headline, because it's a Hitler salute.
It does not require "intent" to be what it is, or call out those who write headlines pretending there is any doubt about what the gesture is.
> Anyone could raise their arm and accidentally make a motion similar to a Nazi salute
Only a Nazi can do it during the inauguration of a president who says he's above the law and acts the part, and then instead of apologizing for the mistake, post shit like "Bet you did nazi that coming", spamming the "crying with laughter emoji" like he loves to do.
You would need to be severely intellectually challenged to think Musk actually intended to give a Nazi salute. The idea is so preposterous I refuse to believe you actually believe that. Or perhaps I am underestimating how detached from reality political fervor can make people.
Look, I think it’s open to some interpretation here. Not being willing to admit the possibility might get us into a very bad situation. Much like following someone in Amsterdam because they offered to show you how to get somewhere might get you mugged.
Elon Musk's coming was literally prophesied by a certain infamous Nazi rocket scientist. I don't expect rational science-minded materialists to believe in spooky magic but at the very least the psychological impact of that apparent prophesy on the man himself should be considered.
The description linked seems like a real stretch to me for it to be considered a prophecy. The only overlap I see with reality is that both Mars and the name Elon are mentioned together.
The author wrote the store around 40 years in his future. We have yet to send a mission to mars, meaning he was off by at least 40 more years.
"Elon" in the story is the title used by the martian leader, not the martian's name and definitely not the human billionaire seeking to make the mission happen.
If you shift the goal posts from "nazi salute" to the "intent", apropos nothing, that should give you pause. You call other people retarded, essentially, and can't follow this simple conversation? Huh?
> corporations need to say every single thing in a positive light or else media would savagely quote them
I call BS - don’t humanize corporations, they do what they can to maximize profit.
Media is being helpful; without media’s work corporations would still present things in good light for them, only now without third parties involved. Consumers would not benefit from that.
I guess one more reason not to claim that corporations are suffering from evil media’s savagery - they’re all corporations after all. Plus, having corporations keep each other in check still sounds helpful to me.
They aren't exactly guilt free either if bewtween the horrible compensation model and a revenue incentive that decreases the quality of their wriing. But two wrongs don't make a right.
>See what happens when somebody big admits openly making a mistake. They get punished.
Yes, actions have consequences. It's not like these are honest, unavoidable misakes these businesses make. They ruthlessly plan around these concepts, and any failure has employees pay the most.
SpaceX has 13000 employees and has launched more than 100 orbital rockets into space last year (and they're also manufacturing thousands of satellites and doing other things). They were able to launch 20 rockets in a year having 5000 employees. ULA is launching couple of rockets a year with 2700 employees. Blue Origin was developing their rocket for the last 10 years and has just launched it for the first time. The whole company doesn't seem to be very efficient.
I see your point, but going from 0 rocket launches to 1 rocket launch probably takes a lot more work than going from 1 rocket launch to x number of rocket launches.
Of course, but SpaceX was able to go to 1 orbital rocket launch with 1000 employees in less than 5 years. ULA also has a new rocket. New Glenn is bigger than Falcon 9 or Vulcan, but it certainly could have been developed and built with less people. Blue Origin is bloated because it isn't functioning like a normal company on market, that has to earn money to function, it exists because Bezos has been throwing money at it for 20 years.
spacex also couldnt earn money prior to their ability to launch rockets. It's only recently that their successful launches of starlink, and various other satellites earned them any cash.
They're successfully launching rockets since 2008 (when they successfully launched small Falcon 1), and started earning big money with Falcon 9 that's flying since 2010. Their biggest customer is NASA, as SpaceX has done over a half of American resupply flights to the ISS (that started in 2012), flying Falcon 9 with their Dragon spacecraft - and these are big contracts, it was $1.6B for 12 flights at the start. Falcon 9 has been sending payloads for many commercial customers since 2013. Since 2020 they're the only American company able to send astronauts to space (at >$200M per flight). Boeing was supposed to be the second option that should be ready around the same time as SpaceX, and they were even awarded more money than SpaceX for development of their spacecraft, but they're not ready yet (which means even more money for SpaceX). By the time SpaceX started sending Starlinks to space frequently, they've already done 70+ launches for various customers.
Compare that with Blue Origin that was founded BEFORE SpaceX (in 2000), which launched its first orbital rocket just recently, while SpaceX has launched Falcon 9 rocket 400+ times.
That’s a fair point however I could see it apply more if they were developing a completely unheard of system, I don’t know some fusion rocket or that whacky centrifuge launch system, but so far it seems they’re going after a traditional design with enough existing research and engineering already around. That’s why people are surprised at their lack of progress.
I don’t understand how so many people perceive the world this way. I work with a top tier of people but also have a couple of duds in my 85 person org. We would definitely be a better company if we got rid of 10 people. Some people are a net negative and eat up important resources who should be spending their time doing things that provide more value versus trying to help the duds.
What am I missing here? Can someone please help me understand the other side aside from taking away peoples livelihood = bad and rich people want all the money for themselves
Why do those people still work there? They should be let go individually to find something more compatible. Mass layoffs are not the way to make that decision.
Acquiring company is concerned about terminations coming back as lawsuits, so unless there is something really egregious is puts so much work on valuable people to follow the required PIP process (I’m talking a months long process) that it changes the equation again and makes it worth it for those duds to suck the time out away from our valuable people who happen to be managing them.
The result is that good people end up loafing because of lowered morale.
If you are in the US you can just fire them for no reason at any time, making employees fight to the death to not be in the bottom 10% is fun for management to squeeze a bit of extra performance out of people but not for anyone else.
If you are in the rest of the world, batch firing "the bottom 10%" for the stated reason of performance (they normally lie and say it is for a different reason) still requires the exact same amount of effort as doing it when there are actual performance issues.
Properly managed teams deal with actual poor performers, and your bottom 10% employee might be a top 1% employee any other company.
Unfortunately acquiring company wont let us just fire people, including those who live in an at-will state. I’m leaving the company in 2 weeks so it won’t be my problem anymore as an employee, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around why people object to layoffs/firings in general.
Zuck fired a large number of “underperformers” (obviously if they’re based on performance reviews there is plenty of room for error) and critics said that firing people for that reason destroys their dignity. I see it as giving them an opportunity to actually earn their dignity. I know that the people who are duds in our company have a negative reputation, so is allowing them to keep their job and bad reps really keeping their dignity? To me, that results in a middling (at best) society. It’s a dangerous trait to keep in a culture. Letting people exist in a way that doesn’t allow them to flourish is a very cruel thing to do to them and to the future of humanity.
I can say objectively that I was listed as one of six or seven key people in our acquisition and have been one of the two most important people in our integration/migrations since then. I’m certain there are people who could do better than me, but within a non-theoretical reality and being responsible for our application development, that is a decent indicator that I’m a valuable member of the team.
Subjectively, I’m not the programmer’s programmer or a great PM, but needing to serve both of those roles has given me a perspective that allows me to identify value in projects where two people in segmented roles would not. Being able to squeeze another 100% of value with 5% of work every once in a while is a good feeling.
I’m not so arrogant to say that I’m a top tier person, but I hope this answers the question without saying so. I also want to say that I wouldn’t be able to do the things I could do without fantastic business and operational teammates. It makes it all the more frustrating when I see duds in the same role who I know are making more money than great contributors.
Blue Origin management has been talking some crazy shit about building and launching as many as 12 launches this year and 25 rockets in 2026. That's not something they said years ago, they said this a few months ago. There's no conceivably way they manage it but they're saying it anyway, which means Bezos must be supplying them with some good cocaine.
Having to do it according to the terms of their license doesn't make it a realistic goal. Three or four launches by 2026 would be more in line with the traditional pace of new launchers (and this doesn't account for Blue Origin's uniquely slow pace.)
Get your facts right. That’s Amazon, not Blue Origin. Amazon has booked flight with various launch providers, including SpaceX to meet their license’s requirement. It’s still a very aggressive schedule with little room for error.
It’s typical HN reaction to only paying attention to layoffs, but not hirings. Blue Origin grew substantially from 1000 in 2018 to 6000 in 2022, to 14,000 in 2024 [0]. Which isn’t much less than SpaceX, despite the latter handling 140 launches a year and handling thousands of Starlink satellites. Reducing the workforce only makes sense. Whether they’ve done it right is another story.
I am saying it is poor management, nothing more nothing less.
Hiring 8,000 people in two years then coming to the conclusion you "aren’t set up for the kind of success that we really wanted to have" is gross incompetence. Management isn't cleared out on the back of such a performance.
He already got to space. It's like releasing a triple A game, you release the staff after it's done. It's sociopathically optimal, and lauded in certain circles as a virtue.
America needs better labor protection laws. Every other day, I see drama like this that ripples across the globe.
Fed rate has improved, inflation is rising again, and the surrounding conditions resemble those of the ZIRP era—aside from the actual rate. Meanwhile, corporations are making more profit than ever. There should be policies in place to prevent them from pulling crap like this whenever they feel like it.
As a lifetime employee, I don't want better labor protection laws. One of the reasons that America has better job prospects than most of the developed world is exactly because of its flexibility in hiring and firing people. Blue Origin hired thousands of people in the past few years because they knew they could reduce the labor force in case of a business contraction or poor decisions in hiring. I've left a country with amazing labor protection laws because it was really hard to find a good job and salary was relatively low because employers had to take into account the huge risks of hiring even a single person.
I think cracking down on wage theft should be a very tractable problem.
Wage theft is extremely common in some industries but virtually nonexistent in others. When I worked for "tech companies" it was as a salaried employee and the amount of overtime I did was obscene. Technically not wage theft since I wasn't hourly, but when you start doing 60+ hours a week for a job which is ostensibly 40 hours a week, because management sucks at their own jobs no less, I think it becomes de facto wage theft. And in jobs which actually do hourly, overt wage theft is extremely common in some industries like food service, but there are also industries, or at least companies, in which it is virtually nonexistent. Working as a tech for a manufacturing company, I clock in on the minute, clock out on the minute, never work even a single second without being on the clock, have never been asked to, and have never not been paid for my time on the clock. This is the way it always should be.
I think we need to abolish salaried work, at least for anybody who isn't in management, and legally require companies to use timeclocks with auditable logs. And if a manager tells you to work without clocking in, that should be a mandatory prison sentence. Do all this and wage theft should become a relic of the past.
(Also, none of this requires it to become a lengthy bureaucratic nightmare to hire or lay off employees, so the concern about companies becoming less nimble and more reluctant to hire at all should not apply. It is possible to have our cake and eat it too.)
You can’t win every war. Germany is a bit better, but not by a large margin. Wages are higher than in France, but so is the cost of living.
That said, Europe isn’t struggling because of labor protection rules but because of its culture.
There are 69 countries with 69 different languages, and each of them wants high-paid foreigners to learn their language. I saw the same thing in France, Germany, and Finland. Why on earth would I care about German or French when I speak and write native-level English?
Another issue is the vacation culture. Three weeks of vacation is incredibly generous, but people here get even more. I’m switching teams because my current one can’t ship anything—different people are on exceedingly long vacations at different times, and there’s no coordination.
Europe is poorer and full of red tape. The fragmentation of languages and regulations doesn’t help. It’s a massive continent, yet the only real tech hubs are in Munich, Berlin, Amsterdam, and London. The rest are just running underpaying sweatshops.
It’s a different tradeoff. I come from a country with a weak passport, which limits my opportunities a lot. It’s hard to explain that to someone who can travel wherever they want, so it’s a bit different for me.
When visas are tied to jobs, getting laid off means something completely different—even in a good labor market. I had to move from the US to one of those countries with strong labor protections. But I agree that salaries take a massive hit because of this, and opportunities are reduced too.
I’ve seen the opposite as well—people losing their residence permits and healthcare coverage, and then going bankrupt after a layoff. For me, lower pay for better labor protection is a sensible tradeoff. But of course, your mileage may vary.
A better solution is to not tie visas to jobs. While at it, also stop tying healthcare insurance to jobs.
As someone from a country with strong labor protections, I'm in favor of making it easier to fire people. There's too much dead weight around in companies here. But being fired shouldn't be a life threatening event.
This is something I can get behind. I don’t want to be a deadweight to a company and still expect to get paid handsomely.
But the reality is that tying visas and healthcare to jobs, and treating expats who pay taxes in the 90th percentile like unwanted immigrants, is a bad deal for everyone involved.
I do hope this gets fixed at some point—I’d love to go back. I made some great friends there. But until then, I still stand for better labor protection.
No, thank you! Europe has these laws, which complicate reducing workforce when needed. These laws resulted in economic crisis across top industries (such as automotive) we see right now.
Maybe so, although I don't know that Blue Origin is the best demonstration for the need. I doubt it's made a profit let alone returned investment. Bezos has supposedly been putting 1-2 billion into it every year, and CEO recently said it makes hundreds of millions per year.
> Every other day, I see drama like this that ripples across the globe.
What do you mean by ripples across the globe?
> Fed rate has improved, inflation is rising again, and the surrounding conditions resemble those of the ZIRP era—aside from the actual rate. Meanwhile, corporations are making more profit than ever. There should be policies in place to prevent them from pulling crap like this whenever they feel like it.
I don't think that's a good line to go down to basically say corporate profits in good times should be curtailed by forcing them to hold onto employees who are costing more than they make for the company. Because what do you do in bad times? Force the companies to go bankrupt, or weaken laws?
I think labor protection should be significantly or entirely divorced from corporate performance, and profit-taking that is wildly disproportionate to value provided should be addressed by mostly by promoting competition.
Blue Origin was founded before SpaceX (in 2000). SpaceX launched their first small orbital rocket successfully in 2008, and is launching Falcon 9 since 2010. At that time Musk had no significant power and he was less wealthy than Bezos (and that was true until 2022 or something, SpaceX also makes up like half of Musk's wealth). SpaceX is in the position it's in because it's been delivering for the last 15 years. There is no "Blue Origin's demise", because they never really started delivering anything other than short up-and-down rides to the edge of space in the 25 years of their existence, until they're finally launched New Glenn last month. I believe that in the end they'll ramp up New Glenn and they'll have both commercial customers AND government customers - I don't believe Musk/Trump can/will really exclude any company from competing for government contracts. But competing with SpaceX is extremely hard, because in 2024 they launched more rockets than every other company/country in the world combined.
Protection laws? Maybe. I think we need to improve the lives of workers in other ways. Higher pay, better benefits, universal healthcare to break the employer tie, more time off, more sick time, mandated parental leave.
I understand the hate for at will employment. If you pay attention to the industry and what your company is doing, you can avoid layoffs or at least be better prepared for them.
If they are actually raising the number of launches then it could also be a huge increase of contractors in areas the company never built its own competence.
If Blue Origin will not get contracts they can sue, in much the same way as SpaceX sued many years ago to be able to compete for national security launches against the old monopoly of ULA.
There was an old joke from a comedian about a far right politician, "he saved me from some fascist thugs once, they almost killed me but he said 'that's enough'". That's basically Kissinger's merit.
Bezos competing with Branson for just-barely-space tourism was fun for a while. But the impending decommissioning of the ISS is fueling a boom in space station development. The future of space tourism is in private space stations like the one Axiom is building.
Which means in the future Bezos needs something comparable to Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule, not a small suborbital pleasure craft like New Shepard.
The tech and infrastructure aren't anywhere near being where it needs to be yet, but it's interesting to note that Bezos is focused on O'Neill Cylinders while Musk is focused on Mars settlement. Both can benefit from there being space stations, but the dream of an O'Neill type space station seems more in line with space station development. Perhaps the two companies can have some overlap, especially when it comes to getting out of Earth's gravity well, but once in space, specialize in different frontiers.
I would cheer then on if they made a competition out of this: Can Bezos make an O'Neill Cylinder first, or will Musk be faster building a sustainable Mars colony. Both seem like far-off goals that will take decades to accomplish, but for very different reasons.
Kind of reminiscent of the Cold War space efforts, when the USA was focusing on Mars and the USSR on Venus, both making great accomplishments.
I suspect with New Glenn finally up and running the tourism photo-ops-buying-time farce can come to an end, and I'll bet that's where many of these layoffs happened.
Also, with New Glenn nearly ready for customers, it's time to shitcan the people who make that happen and replace them with people who can sell and deliver on launches. Why keep paying engineers when you can lay them off and hire some new ones in a few years when you're ready to consider a new rocket design.
Some incredible management there - produce more with less people and less money.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em