That offer was substantially different, for example it included 5 years of COBRA including 1 year of paid COBRA, and it was intended for those near retirement. This current offer is only slightly better terms than an involuntary layoff, and includes only standard 18 months of COBRA, only 6 months paid.
What is the reason to even put a time limit on the unsubsidized part of COBRA? It seems like it would cost the company nothing (besides maybe needing to help you submit a change of address or something periodically) when you’re paying the full premium, and it makes your group slightly bigger anyway (though I assume not enough that it matters).
> What is the reason to even put a time limit on the unsubsidized part of COBRA?
Good question, and why limit this question to Microsoft? Why does COBRA have an 18-month limit? There should be no time limit to COBRA at all, especially if you have been with the same employer for many years. The law needs to be updated. Contact your elected representative.
First of all, it is not cheaper. It may be cheaper for young people because ACA marketplace rates are age dependent while COBRA rates are not. It is not cheaper if you are over a certain age, it is significantly more expensive.
Secondly, many ACA marketplace plans have narrower networks. (Which doctors are in-network doesn't only dependent on the insurance company, it also depends on the network, and insurance companies have multiple networks.) In WA, check out Regence's network for ACA plans--most hospitals are excluded, while their regular plans include them.
Unlike COBRA which almost always includes out-of-state doctors and hospitals, ACA networks don't. If you get a rare disease for which the expert doctor is in another state over you're out of luck.
And lastly, ACA rates just went up 20% in many states. If you are a couple in your 60's, you will pay nearly $45,000 for health insurance and then pay $7,000 each in deductible before insurance kicks in. At these rates, most healthy people will decide to forgo insurance. Which will reduce insurance company profits, who will then raise rates even more. This is a death spiral, and ACA will collapse (which is a desirable outcome as far as the current admin is concerned).
Having been briefly on an ACA plan, it's not ideal because those plans tend to be worse by any metric. Acceptance rate (size of network), copays, covered services, deductibles, etc.
ACA is sometimes cheaper though! Depending on your age, and your income, and whatever politicians in your state are doing to throw sticks in the spokes (not that the ACA really needs any help to collapse, given what an intentionally-compromised, politicized mess it's been from the beginning).
I just wish that we could do a full redo of health-insurance portability with these simple changes: COBRA with zero time limits, and you can choose to apply whatever number of dollars the government(s) would use to subsidize an ACA plan for you, towards COBRA premiums instead. Next, allow employers to offer you pretax premium subsidies to use to pay for COBRA insurance from your former job so that if you take a new job you don't have to change insurance unless you want to.
I'm assuming health insurers would deeply hate all of that, since the upshot from all that is they'd have to compete with each other in the consumer market! They do compete today of course -- to get contracts from employers, but employers have far different interests than humans do.
Large employers are usually self-insured. The insurance company just manages the plan, but the employer actually pays the medical claims out of pocket.
Offering indefinite COBRA means absorbing massive medical risk for people who no longer work for you and aren't providing value. Healthy ex-employees leave COBRA quickly for cheaper coverage, while those with heavy medical expenses stay as long as possible—so the company gets stuck paying for high-cost claims while only collecting basic premiums.
While some companies let retirees buy into a group plan, that's an earned perk to reward long tenure. Indefinite COBRA would give that same lifetime benefit to anyone, even if they worked there for only six months.
I seriously doubt that, no company in their right mind would want to publicize a quarter of their entire workforce or 60,000 people getting “laid off” as a headline
One important distinction was that the previous one was voluntary retirement and was offered to people nearing the ends of their careers. The people taking these offers were likely tired of their jobs and taking the escape hatch to retire (or change jobs in a minority case) a bit earlier than originally planned.
I suspect this VBO will see a lower acceptance rate because there will be a lot of eligible people in their early or mid careers, and unless you are one of the people who won't have trouble finding a new role, or you expect to be fired/laid off soon, or you're are already on your way out, you probably don't want to be starting the job search right now.
On the other hand, the 2nd round of buyouts this year brings certainty. Microsoft laid off 4,800 employees after the 1st round.
If you don’t take the deal now, you’ll spend your remaining days at Microsoft wondering if you’ll be included in the next round of involuntary layoffs, possibly with worse terms and timing.
Will the job market be that much better for you in a year or two?
If you’re worried things are bad and not getting better, you’re probably better off keeping your job and cutting all expenditures you can, so that you can maximize your savings before the job ends, and maybe you will even look out and not end up being laid off.
I gathered what you are saying. As someone who has done that, and been miserable, I do not recommend it.
I'd take the deal before it gets worse, and get a head start on hunting before there's even more people you're competing against. While you're at it, cash out some stocks before the index gets worse.
I'm calling BS. I use Kimi, chatGPT (Astra/Sol), and Claude (Opus 5.5), and Kimi is by far the most expensive in terms of tokens and $/work done. Using OpenCode harness.
> This has been known for a long long time too (decades+), its not a recent discovery.
We've known what caused the effect for a long time. We did _not_ know how they achieved the nanoparticle mix and size in the glass, last I checked. This story is about someone actually taking the basic idea and making a real object.
Not in my experience (yes, sample ~= 1), where they are subpar in terms of cybersecurity (e.g. source code review). This is one of my reports using GPT 5.6 (High), GLM 5.3 High, Fable 5.1 [1]:
> On the full benchmark of 31 audited revisions, GPT-5.6 Sol High reached a weighted recall of 38.27% and GLM-5.3 High reached 30.86%. On a common subset of 12 projects, Claude Fable 5.1 High reached 65.70%, against 42.98% for GPT and 35.54% for GLM.
if you wanna have the same kind of capability as these researchers where you have tight loops calling cli stuff you won't get by with $5 at all, especially for major bugs
if you have a way to turn $5 easily into exploitable vulns, let me know cause that'd be a first for me
They do have Anthropic and OpenAi as vendors, who are at the center of this hack as well, and who have been beating the "distillation attack" drum on a regular basis.
OpenCode, and the lot, will need to release an open, public, dataset containing the original queries (and other relevant details) that the hacked keys were used for. I'm unwilling to trust those industry players at their word. We need to do our own community analyses.
Why is the word "poached" though, like it's illegal or those people "rightfully belongs" to OpenAI but now Facebook "stole" them somehow? Feels like something Steve Jobs would coin just to make it sound worse than it is. People switch jobs, this is OK.
Words do indeed convey an idea. What is being debated is whether the use of the word "poached" conveys the correct idea.
"Poaching" a thing implies that a thing is owned and was unjustly taken.
Humans are employed, not owned. An employer<->employee relationship requires both parties to continue. If an employee breaks this relationship and makes a new one with another employer, there is no theft.
So why do we use the word "poach"? It does not convey what occurred!
My injection into the thread was to query whether a term having been used for a long time is reason enough to continue to use the word "poached" with its associated connotations. We have plenty of other words to use.
In the world of recruiters and hiring, a “headhunter” is probably not slaying candidates with a spear and decapitating them for a trophy, but nevertheless, we use that term routinely! It does not convey what occurred!
Yeah man, they're call "loaded terms" for a reason. They are loaded with connotations beyond what occurred.
For example, I could call you a nitpicker. Are you picking nits? No.
Are you being conscientious? Paying attention to detail? Sure.
Which word would you want me to label you with?
As an employee do I want to be poached? No. I want to be approached, reasoned with, and make my own choices no matter what either employer "feels" about the situation.
They hired many accomplished researchers, with track records of both papers and work at other frontier companies. They gave those folks huge autonomy, huge budget, and 18 months - some would say at the expense of the rest of the company. Check out blind references to TBD. I'd call the strategy ruthless, but it certainly was effective.
reply