Hacker News Reader

Comment by blazespin | Hacker News Reader

Wtf: Jeff Legault, the head of business development for NREC. “I would have preferred [Uber] just come to us” to develop the vehicle rather than hire away scientists, he said. Yeah, that would have worked out just great for the scientists forgoing 6 figure bonuses and doubling of salaries. Sounds like Jeff didn't want to compete for talent. Good on Uber! I dislike the sleazy biz tactics, but poaching is not sleazy. It's recognition of worth.

View on HN

> but poaching is not sleazy. It's recognition of worth.

My impression is there's a difference between luring away researchers with good salaries, strictly according to their talents, and effectively acquihiring an entire team (but without the acqui bit). They're paying not just for the skill and expertise of the individuals, but for the institutional memory and project state of the research group.

You're right, but part of running a business is recognizing where your value/vulnerabilities are and protecting them. If you have millions riding on the performance of a team of researchers and engineers, then you spend more than you otherwise would to retain them. This is especially true if your field is in high demand. Mitigating risk is just another operational cost.

Acquihires happen when the team is well motivated to remain but another company has deeper pockets. It's either cheaper to poach staff or buy the company and it can be a tough call which it is.

It also feels like academics are a bit inconsistent here. Universities are run like any other business but act as though they have a special position as dispensers of education.

The important thing here is that universities never before really had to worry about mass poaching of their researchers. Last year, smart administrators could very reasonably go "look, we're probably paying below market, but there have literally been 0 datapoints where a department has seen an existential crisis because everyone left at once, and so if the departures of our researchers go beyond a trickle, we'll re-evaluate our packages." It wasn't unethical for Uber to take advantage of this market inefficiency, but as more and more universities are seeking private funding for projects, it should serve as a wake-up call. If you want to encourage your PIs to get non-government grants, be prepared that this comes with a nonzero risk of acquihire offers for the research group... and as the university, you don't have "board" control.

One difference is that they were able to acquire the research talent without having to shoulder the burden of the administration talent (in an administration ecosystem that is not of interest to Uber, while Uber already employs enough middle management to take care of the project's needs).

Most companies would go through a full acquire and at least try to soft-land anyone they don't have a use for. Uber has made clear time and again that it has zero interest in individuals that it cannot use.

Most universities have way too much administrative "talent". Maybe they can demonstrate their worth the public companies to get hired.

That seems oversimplified to me. Uber could have funded the research and given grants big enough that the professors and researchers could match their uber salary, while still receiving the perk of contributing and sharing their knowledge.

They'd probably spend twice that much that way. The academic system will siphon off a ton of money before it gets to the actual scientists.

Chiming in to confirm this. I applied for a small (<$5000) travel grant from my state to travel to a national lab for research and the university sends me an approval form with an additional 50% markup off the top as standard operating procedure (i.e. if i ask for $3000 they'd additionally add in a request for $1500 overhead on top)

FYI, and not making any judgement, but this is how they pay for office space and for research that is too esoteric/risky to get external funding.

Does the esoteric research not go through the grant application process?

As far as I've seen, in CS academia, grad students are almost always funded through a government grant (or something similar).

However, salary for tenured professors is guaranteed regardless.

So, if you are a tenured professor, you can choose to do esoteric research that will not get a government grant, but you won't have any grad students.

It actually works out because the less practical, more theory oriented profs do not really need grad students. Whereas the more practical, application oriented profs need grad students to do all the work and they end up "setting up shop" like little companies---and get grants to pay for the students (mainly tuition, also a small stipend).

Not that I'm defending it, but it has a kind of internally consistent logic.

No, research that's too esoteric or risky to get external funding just gets the researcher fired.

Uber could have built some new buildings for the university and paid for new student scholarships too. But they didn't because they are a business, not a philanthropic foundation.

Google is a business as well, but seems to operate with a much lower "tool" factor than Uber somehow.

EDIT: Being innovative doesn't mean "at all costs".

Hiring smart people is now considered a 'tool' move?

In case you're genuinely unaware of the various criticisms of Uber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_%28company%29#Criticism_an...

No, I'm referring to the other issues in the wikipedia page posted by ceejayoz.

Two examples:

When I see news about Tesla, I have a positive reaction. They constantly release new technologies, open sourced their patents, and so on.

When I see a news piece about Uber, I think, "What'd they fuck up this time?".

News pieces about how Uber was attempting to encrypt/destroy data remotely in their Canadian office while a law enforcement raid was in progress......does not help their case.

Luckily in this case all of that has nothing to do with hiring smart people to try and improve their product.

I expressed similar confusion in the last discussion of this, and a poster tried to make the case that Uber could have done this in a more responsible way, that preserved the private benefit but didn't destroy institutional seed corn in the process. I don't endorse it, but it's the best case I've seen against this move.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9606773

However, other comments suggest that the lab wasn't true academia anyway, but an applications-only wing that is non-profit in name only.

I don't think any money paid to NREC would end up in any academic program at CMU. NREC is owned by CMU, but is operated completely independently.

If they are operated completely independently, then why conflation with CMU/academics when churning sympathy? The fact is, NREC and Uber are both businesses.

Something tells me CMU would have diverted the money to things other than the salaries of the researchers.

In a competitive business, it's not always an advantage to contribute and share knowledge. Uber can still choose to do so if they'd like. It's not up to the researchers anymore, though.

Yes, I imagine the HN crowd would have been at least as outraged if Uber had refrained from offering competitive packages as a result of some gentlemen's agreement. See: the recent tech no-poach conspiracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com