[HN Gopher] Musk's first email to Twitter staff ends remote work ___________________________________________________________________ Musk's first email to Twitter staff ends remote work Author : mfiguiere Score : 463 points Date : 2022-11-10 09:45 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com) | mrobins wrote: | Surely this is partially a calculated move to further reduce | headcount/expenses. | UncleOxidant wrote: | It probably is, but it's kind of risky if you end up pissing | off employees who are key to your operations and top | performers. Those folks can easily find work elsewhere. You end | up with the people who can't easily move elsewhere. | mirekrusin wrote: | If you are key top performer, surely you can get approval to | work remotely, no? | bigfudge wrote: | Probably. But you might not want to work at a place where | this is at the whim of a manager. Or where your non rock | star colleagues are treated like shit. | mcgannon2007 wrote: | Not necessarily... | | https://www.engadget.com/an-apple-machine-learning- | director-... | | And in this specific case, Elon's pride may make him see | everyone as replaceable. | greedo wrote: | Does Musk value developers? Considering his "code review" the | first week, and how poorly FSD at Tesla functions, (I know | it's an extremely difficult, if not insurmountable problem) I | think he has a very simplistic idea of how to both evaluate | and motivate developers. | boatsie wrote: | Many other companies are laying off now, and FAANG is in a | hiring freeze. Sellers market right now for employment. | Arainach wrote: | At this point we have enough evidence to conclude that | absolutely nothing Musk does is a "calculated move". If this | drives people to quit it's merely a fringe benefit (benefit | strictly from Musk's perspective) - this is his normal | impulsive micromanaging controlling self. | [deleted] | [deleted] | viraptor wrote: | Unlikely. A more calculated move would be to first remove | remote work, then reduce headcount to the level you want. The | other way not only are they paying larger severance, but also | aren't sure what number of people they end up with and what | teams will disappear completely. | hsuduebc2 wrote: | Ofcourse it is his company so he can do whatever he want but this | man turned out to be kinda douchebag in last few years. | thih9 wrote: | This can't not result in some hidden maintenance or security | problems. | | Half of the people left and the other half has been told to brace | for difficult times, it doesn't sound like good conditions for | smooth continuous operation. | eb0la wrote: | I wasn't interested in buying a Tesla. Now I won't pay for | Twitter. | manjose2018 wrote: | Whatsapp had 1B users with far fewer eng, why is Twitter so big? | | Here is my back of the envelope math of how big I think the | company should be for their main offering. Over the past years | Twitter has acquired a ton of companies, but I'm going to leave | them out of this equation. | | Eng (250) | | =========== | | Backend/Storage: 100 eng | | Subscriptions: 50 | | Front-End: 50 eng | | iOS App: 20 eng | | Android App: 20 eng | | UX: 10 | | Abuse/Moderation (200) ========================= Abuse: 100 | Moderation: 100 | | Marketing/Sales (210) | | ======================= | | PR/Marketing: 30 | | Ad Sales: 180 | | Mgmt/overhead (40) | | ===================== | | Legal/GDPR/compliance: 20 | | HR/Recruiting : 10 | | CEO/CFO/etc.: 10 | | What do you think? How far off am I? If more people turn to | subscriptions perhaps the abuse/moderation team will shrink in | the future. | ssnistfajen wrote: | Twitter isn't the same product(s) as Whatsapp. That difference | is noticeable within 1 minute of opening both applications. | mrweasel wrote: | Yes, WhatsApp seem more complex. | | In all seriousness, I think many of us are falling into the | trap that the PayPal guy fell into. Twitter isn't just the | app and the website. So it's much harder to run and maintain | than it seems like from the outside. If it was just the | Tweets, why would they ever need more than 10 iOS developers | for instance? | | If we cut Twitter into what it is on the surface, and perhaps | lose some data retention, then sliming down the engineering | organization significantly should be possible with the right | people. Not to 50, that's really low for a platform the size | of Twitter. That being said: 7500 employees is also way to | many for what they do, or at least for how little money they | make. | ssnistfajen wrote: | >Yes, WhatsApp seem more complex. | | K. | | Nobody asked Musk to acquire the company. The only reason | it went through is thanks to a long line of court rulings | starting with Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. that prioritized | shareholder interest over every other stakeholders. You | can't expect to practically traumatize a company's culture | like this and expect all the "right people" to still stay | here and give their 100%. | mrweasel wrote: | >Yes, WhatsApp seem more complex. | | So that was meant as a joke, probably should have left | that out. | | >Nobody asked Musk to acquire the company | | Technically I believe he was forced to buy in the end, | but no. You're right, no one asked him to do anything. | The shareholders saw an out. They had a failed company on | their hands and now the PayPal guy shows up and stupidly | promises to buy the whole thing for way more than it's | actually worth. Of cause they are going to dump the stock | on the idiot, by (legal)forced if they had to. Now it's | Musks problem. He has zero ideals when it comes to | Twitter culture. He doesn't care. All he currently see is | 7500 people who needs a paycheck, paid by him. He | stupidly thought he could run Twitter successfully, like | most of us HN backseat drivers. When he realized that he | can't it was to late and now he stuck and have to either | save the company or at least not lose to much more money. | dist1ll wrote: | You forgot operations, tooling, observability, SRE, incidence | response, etc | cromka wrote: | The picture isn't complete unless you also compare it with | Toyota. | DrBenCarson wrote: | On WhatsApp, your "post" can be seen by everyone you've | exchanged phone numbers with. On Twitter, your "post" can be | seen by the entire world. | layer8 wrote: | With 5000 to 10000 tweets being sent per second (~500 million | per day), 200 employees for abuse/moderation seems low. | TylerE wrote: | You really think a total of 200 moderators could come even | close? | | Thats 1.7M tweets a day per moderator. A bit over 3500 per | minute. | | And thats assuming they work 7 days a week, never get sick, | never take vacation. | davidguetta wrote: | Most of moderation is typically outsourced so it doesnt | countin this list | myroon5 wrote: | Related tech staffing thoughts of someone now directly | involved: | | https://sacks.substack.com/p/the-saas-org-chart | phillipcarter wrote: | I wonder if the author would change this post to show less | employees and higher ARR. That's certainly been my experience | today. | mkl95 wrote: | Twitter's business model is a clusterfuck. Whatsapp's isn't. | jedberg wrote: | The number one result when you search for Twitter on HN: | | Twitter Will Allow Employees to Work at Home Forever | (buzzfeednews.com) | | 2953 points by minimaxir on May 12, 2020 | hide | past | favorite | | 1353 comments | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 | throwayyy479087 wrote: | I've been told many times that Twitter is a private company and | can do whatever it wants. | | Or does that only apply to the Red team? | ryanSrich wrote: | We call this a soft layoff. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Is there any reason for anyone to stay at twitter? I've not seen | Musk offer any upside anywhere to remaining. He's laying out a | stark plan of hard work and fewer benefits and a brutal | management. What reason other than inability to find another job | (perhaps due to visa status, the hiring freezes at end of year, | and layoffs) does anyone have for working at twitter now? I'm | shocked if they don't see another 50+% voluntary attrition in | 2023. | bottlepalm wrote: | Even though the pay is lower and hours longer - at his other | companies they offered stock options that at least 20x'd over | the past 10 years at SpaceX and Tesla. | | If the employees at Twitter think under Musk's leadership that | they can grow the company to 200 billion or more - then yea | it'd be worth staying to collect stock that no one else can get | now. | | Hopefully they're giving the remaining employees generous stock | awards for staying. With the user base they have there's no | reason they can't grow the company a lot with the the right | strategy. | | Musk has already discussed attacking YouTube directly and it | sounds like he wants to expand into other social network | niches. The whole X.com thing. | | A lot of Twitter employees could come out pretty wealthy if | successful. If it were me I'd stick around a year at least to | see which way this whole thing is going. | joshe wrote: | Would be wonderfully ironic if Elon saves downtown SF. | solardev wrote: | Maybe Musk just likes explosions. Rockets, batteries, Twitter... | jdcaron wrote: | This guy is a car salesman, no wonder he wants to force an in | office working policy. | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | According to leaked email on CNBC, Musk said that Twitter needs | 50% of its revenue to be subscriptions in order to surivive: | | > That is why the priority over the past ten days has been to | develop and launch Twitter Blue Verified subscriptions (huge | props to the team!). Without significant subscription revenue, | there is a good chance Twitter will not survive the upcoming | economic downturn. We need roughly half of our revenue to be | subscription. | | Is that even remotely feasible? Based on the commentary I've | seen, Twitter Blue is going to be a drop in the bucket compared | to their total revenue. | rbetts wrote: | Q2 revenue was $1.18B on 237.8M mDAU. If they want $590M (50%) | in subscription revenue, that's 24.5M subscriptons @ $24 per | quarter. So they'd need to convert about 10% of the reported | mDAU to subscribers? | | https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-s... | apendleton wrote: | I don't think what he's proposing is to replace any ad | revenue -- he's trying to grow revenue and take a company | currently in the red into the black. I think he means to keep | all the ad revenue, and then add that much again in | subscription revenue. So: 20%, I guess? Or even more to make | up for advertiser attrition? Which seems like... a ton. | rodgerd wrote: | Just to service the debt that Musk loaded them with as part of | the purchase, they're going to have to add a billion a year. | They had 5 billion in revenue last year. So that would be three | billion a year in subscriptions. | | Given that Twitter had about half a billion users hat's six | dollars per user in subscriptions to see six dollars worth of | surveillance capitalism per year. Does that seem likely? | colinloretz wrote: | not likely, subscriptions are very mature on YouTube and still | only make up a tiny percentage of revenue. MKBHD did a good | video breaking this down across other social networks | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1qsF0WQy8c | pigtailgirl wrote: | -- I was more scared of the "upcoming economic downturn" - how | bad are people expecting this recession to be? -- | jacquesc wrote: | I think it could only possibly work if "subscriptions" were not | directly to twitter, but to other twitter subscribers. Premium | follows to content creators, charities, individual journalists, | or politicians. Where you get some "club only" content and | interaction. And Twitter takes a piece off the top | klodolph wrote: | Revenue of $5bn. Let's say that you burn half of it down, so | you're making $2.5bn with ads, and $2.5bn with subscriptions. | If there 200M DAU, then that means you want to make $12.5/year, | per user, for subscriptions. | | I don't see how that would be possible, even under the most | wildly optimistic scenarios. | inerte wrote: | The good news is that if your revenue drops, so does your | share of subscription. In that sense he's already helping the | goal by doing the first part! | andsoitis wrote: | One area Twitter hasn't excelled in is adding new users. | dragonwriter wrote: | > According to leaked email on CNBC, Musk said that Twitter | needs 50% of its revenue to be subscriptions in order to | surivive [...] Is that even remotely feasible? | | Yes, Musk can plausibly drive off enough advertisers to get | advertising revenue down to parity with subscription revenue. | | Don't see how it helps Twitter survive, though. | autospeaker22 wrote: | I keep thinking it'd be much cheaper for Elon to have paid to | build an entirely new Twitter that has the features he's looking | for. | | Let's say Elon had set aside a budget to hire some of the best | developers he's ever worked with or heard of, and lets give them | an imaginary salary of 1.5 million total comp per year, at about | 10 devs for easy math. And let's say another 500k for bennies. So | our operating expense for top dev talent comes out to 20 million | a year. You can have an elite tier dev team, for 20 million a | year that could easily build a twitter. He could've tried to | interview ex-Twitter and get feedback on technical debt, pain | points, problems to have fixed in the newly architect-ed model. | | So then you need users. Elon has 115 million followers on | Twitter. He'd get users no matter what he built, so he's solved | that problem too. You're correct that he wouldn't have the | existing Twitter user base, but if he built a better product that | is more modern and cut out some of the dead-weight features, | wouldn't this option still be significantly cheaper than | acquiring a company for $44 billion who only deals in software? | At least apple makes products, as does amazon and at least amazon | is a distribution behemoth. I struggle to see the 44 billion in | value for what appears to be a relatively mundane application. | | In my mind I don't see anyone even spending on the order of 1 | billion to build a better Twitter from scratch. | vonseel wrote: | I'm just guessing, but maybe Elon really loves _Twitter_. | Building a new platform wouldn't allow him to rescue the thing | he loves. Seems more like an emotional decision than a logical | one. | jensvdh wrote: | If you paid me anywhere between 750-1.5M a year just go on in | the office 40 hours a week I'd take that offer any day every | day. | | I did the same for less than half of that not even 2 years ago. | | The problem with Musk companies is 1) It'll be MINIMUM 40 hours | a week, no WLB 2) His companies aren't known for paying | competitively | VirusNewbie wrote: | Didn't need to be too competitive when you had 11x stock | growth. Will be interesting to see if things change now that | their stock is flatish. | autospeaker22 wrote: | Didn't know that about the comp at his companies. Kind of | crazy considering the risk to human life associated with many | of his companies. Would've expected them to pay top tier. | fallingknife wrote: | Then you would be shocked to learn how little software | engineers are paid in the automotive industry vs me working | on dumb VC money pit web apps. | [deleted] | simonebrunozzi wrote: | Disagree, a lot. | | Most people underestimate two things, IMHO. One is obvious: the | cost of convincing everyone that Muskitter is the place to go. | | The second one? You could NOT build a twitter equivalent for a | billion dollars. I'd be happy to take bets. | | Corollary to number two: building it means actually two things: | one, building it, and two, having a team that can start from | the moment of finished building it, and continue developing and | bug fixing and supporting the platform from T+1 onwards. | dools wrote: | It would be even cheaper to just buy the political influence he | is trying to wield by directly funding politicians like his | buddy Peter Thiel. Corrupting the GOP is surprisingly | inexpensive for the value you receive in return. | qez wrote: | > So then you need users. Elon has 115 million followers on | Twitter. He'd get users no matter what he built, so he's solved | that problem too | | No. He got that number of followers because he is on Twitter. | He would not get the same number of followers on some other | social media platoform. Trump had 20 times as many followers on | Twitter than he has on Truth Social. And those Truth Social | users are less valuable. | | Engineers like to think that the engineering is the important | part of platforms. It's not. The engineering can be easily | replicated. The valuable part of platforms is the users. You | buy the platforms to buy the users. | misiti3780 wrote: | All of the people (or most of the people) that matter would not | have left Twitter for Elon's new company. Tons of people have | tried this. | | Remember Dalton Caldwell's App.net. That didn't even get off | the ground and it had a ton of YC press. | | Network affects are real. | photochemsyn wrote: | Top comment on app.net shutdown notice on HN ( Jan2017): | | > "So to recap, Twitter exploded onto the scene in 2007, the | "fail whale" appeared a lot, developers made all sorts of | wonderful programs hooked into Twitter, the fail whale | disappeared, Twitter started to destroy the app ecosystem, | App.net launched to great fanfare in response to Twitter's | knuckleheaded anti-developer stance, Britney Spears and | Justin Bieber arrived and knocked all the nerds out of the | top spots on Twitterholic, Donald Trump came and bludgeoned | everyone with his bombastic prose, and now App.net is | shutting down. And after all this, Twitter still does not | have a viable business model." | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13387723 | autospeaker22 wrote: | I think for an insane comp and equity in a new company led by | Elon, lots of people would consider leaving. Network affects | are real and is probably a top 10 world individual as far as | the power of his network is concerned. Having a ton of YC | press is way different than being Elon. | | Even still he could pay people to use his application. Pay | businesses $20 a month for a verified business account. Pay | individual users $10-100 a month based on activity and | engagement. Does it scale? Absolutely not but I still think | it'd end up cheaper than $44 billion. | stormbrew wrote: | Go check out Mixer and Facebook's game streaming if you | want to see how well buying influencers onto your platform | works. | | It doesn't. No one's ever made it work. You need users and | creators and users are considerably more stubborn than | creators. | autospeaker22 wrote: | Guess it's like Zuck trying to force everyone onto the | Metaverse. | ur-whale wrote: | > I keep thinking it'd be much cheaper for Elon to have paid to | build an entirely new Twitter that has the features he's | looking for. | | Two things to counter that idea: | | 1. Social apps aren't about features, they're about the network | effect and the user base. Rebuilding that of Twitter at this | stage would have been _very_ hard. | | 2. Even assuming that was possible, the time it would take to | rebuild something like it means guaranteed failure. | eftychis wrote: | He bought the users not the equipment, developers etc. The | brand and domain is what he bought -- in his mind at least. | throw8383833jj wrote: | Anybody can build a twitter at a tiny fraction of the cost of | Twitter. The problem is always user acquisition. It's | extraodinarily difficult to get a vast segment of the userbase | to switch to your platform. Even getting a tiny handful would | cost vast sums of money. Think about it. If it could be done, | it would be done and we'd see a largely segmented social media | landscape with hundreds of twitter clones. It's not the case. | gray_-_wolf wrote: | Isn't one exception to this the case when you control both | the old and new platform, and can technically just migrate | what content possible and just replace the old one with new? | It technically does not even have to be "new" platform, it | could be presented as "twitter redesign". | fortydegrees wrote: | Twitter has 450M monthly active users. Elon bought it for | $44bn. With ~$5bn in operating expenses, that gives you an | absolutely insane CAC of $90 to play with. | selectout wrote: | I'm always curious if he just set aside say $250k/year (2 | year contract maybe?) to the top 100 content creators at | Twitter/IG/TikTok today. | | Add $25 million to the annual costs and have the chicken/egg | problem semi-saved. | autospeaker22 wrote: | Makes sense.. there's a small handful of social media | platforms people actually use compared to cemetery of failed | attempts. | throwuwu wrote: | The problem with your proposal is that Elons Twitter followers | do not equal a profitable market. He needs Twitter's brand and | established user base to bootstrap whatever X is (something | payment related probably). If it were just a bunch of his fans | it wouldn't have the penetration needed to loop more people in. | autospeaker22 wrote: | I'd argue his followers are his greatest chance at profit. | Many people despise him and have been closing their twitter | accounts. So despite it still being twitter brand and | established users, they don't like Elon so they don't want to | support the platform. | Consultant32452 wrote: | Elon reported on Nov 7 that Twitter usage was at an all | time high. Do you believe that is dishonest? Or do you | believe this uptick will be short-lived? | bb88 wrote: | So let's say we're being generous and say Elon has 10M | hardcore followers. | | So $44B/10M = $4.4k per follower on Twitter. If he can sell | each of those a Tesla it might be fine. | | I'm beginning to hear the term "Muskmobile" bandied about | in not a good way though. Consumer Reports is reporting a | ton of reliability problems as Tesla scales up [1]. And | Ford/GM is not far behind in their electric offerings | either. | | [1] https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Tesla-ranks-almost- | dead-.... | awinder wrote: | Congratulations, you just lost all your invested capital on | Truth Social 2.0. | autospeaker22 wrote: | Better in theory than IRL. You think the Don was able to get | top dev talent lol? | fredley wrote: | I don't think you even need top dev talent to build Twitter | now. Maybe you did back when it started, but it's not | something a team of experienced, competent, 'regular' | engineers couldn't build and more successfully than 'top' | talent. | nightski wrote: | Top dev talent is overrated imo. Not to mention almost | every dev thinks they are top tier even if most of us are | just mediocre. | autospeaker22 wrote: | I guess there's that.. but at a rate of 2 million a year, | if someone was under-performing I'd imagine Elon would | quickly be able to cycle in and out. And if the whole | thing fails after 1-2 years, it's still not even half a | billion spent. Compared to the titanic Twitter sinking. | robocat wrote: | > Top dev talent is overrated | | The problem is that talent is defined by hindsight: "When | the company was acquired by Facebook, it had 35 | engineers" https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp- | serves-900-million-us... | | Let us start with engineering team A and and an equally | talented engineering team B. If team B had the luck to | work on a successful product due to a successful market, | we call them talented. If A flamed out due to | unpredictable reasons (that their market turned out to be | shit), we lambast the lack of ability of team A. | | But technical talent is definitely not overrated - | because there are too many examples where talented teams | have built unicorn multi-billion $ businesses. | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | > I keep thinking it'd be much cheaper for Elon to have paid to | build an entirely new Twitter that has the features he's | looking for. | | It'd be even cheaper if he had the sense to not play chicken | with Twitter's board only to get called on his bluff. Nothing | about how he's handled Twitter thus far suggests that he ever | took his offer to buy them seriously. He was showboating from | the beginning and screwed up, and thousands of people are | paying the price. | | We'll probably never know, but I'd love to hear the story of | how exactly he thought it would be a good idea to blindly sign | the binding paperwork for the purchase without doing any | serious due diligence. Either his lawyers were begging him not | to or they're as dumb as he is. | jrochkind1 wrote: | I may be missing something, but would it have been _that_ | hard to fail to get financing and get out of it, since it was | a bad deal that others shouldn 't want to finance, if he had | started working on failing to get financing _before_ he... | succefully lined up financing? | | I guess it would have been a hit to his ego if he had failed | to get financing... it'll probably be a bigger one to drive | twitter into the ground and throw away his and others | billions. | | The whole thing is very bizarre from the start to now. | pydry wrote: | I think there was a $1 billion fine if he quit the deal. | | That would have stung. | countvonbalzac wrote: | probably less than what he'll lose with this scenario | uMeanPpl wrote: | Tbh I thought that was the entire play. $1 billion is way | cheaper than $44 and whatever he just sold of Tesla to | keep Twitter afloat. | | Jack hyping Elon as twitter's great hope and such I | almost expected this was some subtle game to get that $1 | billion to Twitter | | Now I can't help but wonder if Jack was tweeting such | praise to goad Elons ego into it. But in hindsight I'm | probably giving these guys too much credit | saberdancer wrote: | Jack was privately talking the same to Elon. You can read | more in the discovery documents (Elon's messages). | | The gist was it that Jack believes Twitter should be not | be a company and he believed Musk will take it there. Not | sure I agree. | shmoogy wrote: | He couldn't quit the deal, he would have (probably | gladly) taken only a billion loss | lesuorac wrote: | No, there's a $1B fee under extremely limited | circumstances. There is no written agreement on how to | handle any other circumstance (hence the court case). | | > Either Twitter or Parent may terminate the Merger | Agreement if, among certain other circumstances, (1) the | Merger has not been consummated on or before October 24, | 2022, which date will be extended for six months if the | closing conditions related to applicable antitrust and | foreign investment clearances and the absence of any | applicable law or order making illegal or prohibiting the | Merger have not been satisfied as of such date; or (2) | Twitter's stockholders fail to adopt the Merger | Agreement. Twitter may terminate the Merger Agreement in | certain additional limited circumstances, including to | allow Twitter to enter into a definitive agreement for a | competing acquisition proposal that constitutes a | Superior Proposal (as defined in the Merger Agreement). | Parent may terminate the Merger Agreement in certain | additional limited circumstances, including prior to the | adoption of the Merger Agreement by Twitter's | stockholders if the Board recommends that Twitter's | stockholders vote against the adoption of the Merger | Agreement or in favor of any competing acquisition | proposal. | | > ... | | > Upon termination of the Merger Agreement under other | specified limited circumstances, Parent will be required | to pay Twitter a termination fee of $1.0 billion. | Specifically, this termination fee is payable by Parent | to Twitter if the Merger Agreement is terminated by | Twitter because (1) the conditions to Parent's and | Acquisition Sub's obligations to consummate the Merger | are satisfied and the Parent fails to consummate the | Merger as required pursuant to, and in the circumstances | specified in, the Merger Agreement; or (2) Parent or | Acquisition Sub's breaches of its representations, | warranties or covenants in a manner that would cause the | related closing conditions to not be satisfied. Mr. Musk | has provided Twitter with a limited guarantee in favor of | Twitter (the "Limited Guarantee"). The Limited Guarantee | guarantees, among other things, the payment of the | termination fee payable by Parent to Twitter, subject to | the conditions set forth in the Limited Guarantee. [1] | | [1]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/0001 | 19312522... | eftychis wrote: | They would have liquidated him -- and that would have | crashed the Tesla stock (more than now anyways). | FridgeSeal wrote: | Twitter leadership and board really walked away from this | with the winning hand didn't they. | uMeanPpl wrote: | The first fired employees too, imo. If it all goes up in | flames those that remain might get to keep their laptop. | Qub3d wrote: | My Dad told me a story from the dot-com bust: | | To save money at the time he drove a van for a carpool | service (he could use it for free as a result). A lot of | the guys on his van were in tech. | | When the first rounds of layoffs hit, guys would get on | at the end of the day and they would talk about their | severance. The first question in response to "I got laid | off" was "What's your severance?" | | At one point deep into 2002, he remembered a change. Now | guys were getting on the van with all their stuff in a | box. He played the game, even though he wasn't in tech, | and asked one of the guys with a box, "What's your | severance?" | | He just got a flat look in response. | ksherlock wrote: | If you look at the timeline, he made an unsolicited offer | with no details, the twitter BoD instituted a poison pill, | then he lined up all the financing and made a second | ("final") offer with very specific details about the | funding (including commitment letters for the loans), then | he negotiated to buy it with no due diligence, etc. Morgan | Stanley, etc, already agreed to loan the money back in | April. At the time, the big banks did want to finance it! | admn2 wrote: | Why did he not do any due diligence before buying? It's | not like he had FOMO he was going to miss out. That's the | part I don't understand in all of this. | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | No idea, but he seems like the kind of guy whose ego | can't suffer from the embarrassment of being called out. | It wouldn't surprise me at all if he did all this just | because he was incapable of losing face for acting like | an idiot. Joke's on him though. | runarberg wrote: | When you are this rich, stuff like this doesn't matter. Even | if he lost all the 40 Bn USD means he'll still be the richest | person on earth, that's how much money he has. To keep with | the poker analogy, his "bluff" involved only 40 poker chips, | but he has 200 after the fact, while his "opponents" have 1 | or 2 each. | | But in the end, money will always end up in his hands no | matter what he does. When you are this rich, you'll always | end up making money. | ibn_khaldun wrote: | You are neglecting to consider the other fundamental needs | of a filthy rich person like an Elon Musk, two that are of | greater priority than sheer wealth even, name and fame. | wingworks wrote: | Allot of how Elon handled the layoffs from what's public | doesn't sound ideal. But also idk how many of those people | would've had a job at twitter for much longer anyway. We get | a post in HN every other day at the moment of x company | laying of 1000 of people. | _djo_ wrote: | Twitter was almost certain to see layoffs had Musk not | bought it, but they'd have been slower, more considered, | less harmful, and probably smaller because the company | didn't have a ludicrous leveraged buyout $1bn annual debt | bill. | | The way things are going now there's an increasingly real | possibility that Twitter may not exist in a few months, | putting the jobs of the other 3000 or so employees at risk | too. Not to mention all the people who used Twitter to make | a living. | | The destruction of lives and so much value for one man's | ego is astounding. | shkkmo wrote: | > there's an increasingly real possibility that Twitter | may not exist in a few months, | | If you honestly think that's a real possibility, how do | you see that actually happening? | dragonwriter wrote: | They are seeing a massive advertiser exodus, have | apparently created potential new FTC/DOJ issues regarding | the existing privacy consent decree with their desire to | push-down responsibilty to facilitate velocity, are | seeing policy churn that undermines trust, and their big | revenue ideas are becoming a for-pay social network and | payment processor with that trust deficit. | rolenthedeep wrote: | Musky himself has said that bankruptcy is a possibility: | | https://www.axios.com/2022/11/10/musk-twitter-email- | arduous-... | | Strangely, it's the same story as linked in OP, but | Bloomberg doesn't include that detail | llamataboot wrote: | No advertisers? Catastrophic server failures? Elon just | pulls the plug? | rmbyrro wrote: | I think he did want to buy since the beginning. He's got | bigger plans for it beyond short messages. The free speech | thing is just marketing. | anonyme-honteux wrote: | My cynical guess: | | Elon Musk's big plan is simply to build a huge personality | cult around him and Twitter is perfect for that. | | It's not enough for him to be exceptionally rich, he wants | to be _adulated_. | | He wants to hear he is the new Steve Jobs, that he is | better than Leonardo Da Vinci. That he got this right, we | are living in a computer simulation. | | Why do everyone keeps assuming he is playing 10 dimensional | chess? | | Have you seen his dumb tunnel under Las Vegas? Why would a | brilliant engineer build that? What's the big plan here? | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8NiM_p8n5A | thot_experiment wrote: | I mean, I don't think the dumb tunnel under vegas is good | evidence of not being a brilliant engineer. He obviously | has a very deep understanding of engineering type shit as | well as engineering management[0][1]. He's got engineer | brain! Engineer brain can make you do a lot of really | stupid shit even if you're a great engineer. | | That being said I absolutely _don 't_ think he's playing | 10D chess, he's got a few big Ws and it's gone to his | head in a disastrous way. He can be a brilliant | engineer/engineering manager and a total fucking idiot at | the same time. | | [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAtLTLiqNwg | [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t705r8ICkRw | anonyme-honteux wrote: | To be honest the thing that worries me most about the | dumb Las Vegas tunnel, is not that he had a bad idea. I | have bad ideas all the time too. But my bad ideas don't | turn into dumb tunnels because I have limited resources | (he doesn't) and because I have feedback from the harsh | reality. | | The dumb tunnel makes me think Elon Musk is fully | insulated from reality. Nobody around him dared to tell | him the tunnel was dumb. And or he didn't listened. | | Fast forward today where he decides on a whim that every | engineer must stop working remotely and must instead work | like crazy to satisfy his ego. And here again the | feedback from reality seems minimal on him. | | I think and I hope that the good engineers at Twitter are | making plans to leave this terrible boss ASAP. | ben_w wrote: | Back when the Boring Company was new, although I thought | it was weird even then, I had enough trust in his | business vision to be motivated to guess how it might | fit. | | Best I got was, experience with tunnel boring machines | would be really useful for Marian and Lunar colonies. | | Now though? Well, now I think it was always merely the | billionaire equivalent of me picking up Blender, | modelling half a spaceship before I get bored, quit, and | forget I even have Blender installed for another six | months. | anonyme-honteux wrote: | That's a great way to put it. | mrtksn wrote: | I suspect it's all about his process and he doesn't | really have a grand plan but a general strategy. He is | really good in few things and as a result he thrives in | precarious situations. IMHO, he really believes in | Twitters potential in he is trying to find the solution | to dig himself out of the pit he jumped in. | | Notice how He re-discovers everything that people were | saying about running a social media? I think His hands on | micromanager approach is good for finding a solution | through iteration. Of course, if a solution exists. | | It is like going back to the basics and look at the | situation with a fresh eye and understand why something | doesn't work, create a solution and try again if the | solution doesn't work. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Notice how He re-discovers everything that people were | saying about running a social media? I think His hands on | micromanager approach is good for finding a solution | through iteration. | | This works well in a startup whose business position is a | kind of blank slate and you have lots of VC money | compared to you run rate, but when your existing business | relies on established trust in the market, uninformed | blind rapid iteration that harms brand position and | existing relationships adds additional problem while you | are exploring the solution space for the preexisting | problem. | autospeaker22 wrote: | Your theory is the one that seems most plausible to me. | Pushed into a decision he thought he could back out of and | now trying to fix it the best way he sees fit. | shp0ngle wrote: | He doesn't want to build a better twitter. | | He wants to _own this twitter_. | lesuorac wrote: | I wonder if he'll get himself retroactive added as a founder | of twitter in the past just like tesla. | jonny_eh wrote: | "You made this? I made this." https://imgflip.com/i/70bgz4 | siquick wrote: | This is a pretty naive take on how hard it is to build a | application that relies on any kind of network effect, | activation, and retention, not to mention a complex ad platform | that needs CS/Sales to even get it off the ground. | [deleted] | TulliusCicero wrote: | That money would get you a very robust prototype, but getting | to scale requires building a lot of random other features that | most users aren't aware of, plus being around long enough with | half-decent community management to acquire users. | | Companies like Twitter don't get big for no reason. Yes, | there's obviously some bloat, but a lot of it's just random | 'non-core' features that still need to get done. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | > And let's say another 500k for bennies. So our operating | expense for top dev talent comes out to 20 million a year. You | can have an elite tier dev team, for 20 million a year that | could easily build a twitter. He could've tried to interview | ex-Twitter and get feedback on technical debt, pain points, | problems to have fixed in the newly architect-ed model. | | No, you won't. There's a lot more to running a social media | site than just building it. You can't just build and ship. | | Either it is a paid service, or it runs on ads. For the former, | good luck amassing any substantial amount of users. | | For the latter, well, evidence shows that brand security is | important and advertisers don't want their brands displayed | along the endless stream of n-words, racism, and homophobia | enabled by free-speech absolutionists like Elon. So with such a | cesspool, why would anyone in their right mind join? Without | users, you can not run an ad-based social network either. | | Now that I covered the bare minimum; this is a great read on | why you can't just build and ship, if it was easy, twitter | wouldn't have been unprofitable for years, and all other | twitter clones with free speech wouldn't have failed. | | https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you... | autospeaker22 wrote: | Alright. Even if you double it to 40 million to hire the | elite tier dev team, ops, and sre. They could definitely | build, ship, and maintain. Yes, he'd be losing money at 40 | million a year just on salaries, but I'd imagine they could | build something pretty amazing at that rate. | | Advertisers have already pulled out of Twitter and Elon is | talking about publicly shaming them. How is his current | reality any better than starting fresh. He could've invested | in building technology from scratch to handle hate speech and | removing bad apples. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | > Advertisers have already pulled out of Twitter and Elon | is talking about publicly shaming them. | | Either Elon is delusional, or he is posturing. Either way, | he is in no position to demand anything [1,2]. In [1], Elon | was told by industry leaders what the issues with his | approach are, and then Elon blocked one of them. Elon | claims that activists are pushing advertisers but according | to industry leaders, that is not true [1]. | | > Elon, Great chat yesterday, As you heard overwhelmingly | from senior advertisers on the call, the issue concerning | us all is content moderation and its impact on BRAND | SAFETY/SUITABILITY. You say you're committed to moderation, | but you just laid off 75% of the moderation team! | | > Advertisers are not being manipulated by activist groups, | they are being compelled by established principles around | the types of companies they can do business with. These | principles include an assessment of the platforms | commitment to brand safety and suitability. | | So really; free-speech absolution does not work. Read the | post I linked to. | | > He could've invested in building technology from scratch | to handle hate speech and removing bad apples. | | Probably no. Read the post in the comment above. | | Handling hatespeech from an operational perspective is one | thing, and from a technical perspective e.g. identifying | and categorizing it is a whole different thing. | | Elon has already gone back to his free-speech absolutionism | [3]. | | His tweets: | | > Twitter will not allow anyone who was de-platformed for | violating Twitter rules back on platform until we have a | clear process for doing so, which will take at least a few | more weeks | | > Talked to civil society leaders @JGreenblattADL , | @YaelEisenstat , @rashadrobinson , @JGo4Justice , | @normanlschen , @DerrickNAACP , @TheBushCenter Ken Hersch & | @SindyBenavides about how Twitter will continue to combat | hate & harassment & enforce its election integrity policies | | As for this one: | | > How is his current reality any better than starting | fresh. | | He has users, for now. This means that he doesn't need to | spend money on growth. | | [1] https://www.mediaite.com/news/elon-musk-gets-pilloried- | by-to... | | [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/09/tech/musk-twitter- | brands-... | | [3] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics- | news/right-wi... | VLM wrote: | Interesting strategic window: You can't innovate and software | engineer using 1950s style "butts in seats". Maybe this is a | signal twitter isn't going to innovate, develop, and maybe even | operate, internally, at least going forward. | | You need code for a new feature? Buy a startup that already wrote | it. You need to keep something running? Contract out instead of | employees. | | Very few companies have a full time plumber or carpenter or | electrician on staff (except for obvious obscure exceptions of | course). He might be planning bigger changes than people seem to | think. | | What fundamentally does twitter do? Sell ads by moving data | around using enormous first mover advantage of account numbers. | And that needs a huge employee count why exactly? I am not asking | that it did, or it did in the early days of the technology, or | what the competitors do. | | All industries, after the heavy employment phase, move into a | value extraction phase. He seems to be betting on the heavy | employment phase being over for tweeting. Honestly the only | question is timing, is he just right or too early? | | Maybe tweeting is now like railroads or heavy industry, no longer | employs entire neighborhoods or even cities. Maybe SV is about to | become the new Detroit. | coldtea wrote: | > _Interesting strategic window: You can 't innovate and | software engineer using 1950s style "butts in seats". Maybe | this is a signal twitter isn't going to innovate, develop, and | maybe even operate, internally, at least going forward._ | | Companies like twitter don't innovate, and never had. They're | based on very simple ideas and features and network effects. | They got big because it was a catchy idea ("be a smartass with | one-liners and gossip with famous people"), but there's no | innovation beyond that. Nothing that needs any big brain or | creative genius anyway. Same for Facebook, Instagram, and so | on. It's all about getting the VC money and traction, the | innovation is 1% of the whole thing, if that. | SkyPuncher wrote: | What has Twitter innovated on in the past decade? | | While I don't agree with the way Elon has been making this | move, it's sure looking like he's trying to clear the place out | so he can establish a new culture. These policy changes are | likely to scare mobile, top-performers off to other companies. | This likely clears out a lot of internal dissent and heal | digging to make room for new "top performers". | | I wouldn't be shocked if we see new "top talent" hires in 3 to | 6 months then _actual_ new innovation in 6 to 12 months. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Why would any competent engineer sign up to work in the | environment Musk has created? I've seen no upside to | employees offered, only brutal management and benefit | reduction with a promise of hard work for less. | boole1854 wrote: | Musk attracts engineers by selling a vision. Reusable | rockets to make humanity an interstellar species. Electric | vehicles to free humanity from fossil fuels. Humanoid | robots. Neuralink. And on it goes. | | For Twitter, the vision Musk is selling is that "it is | important to the future of civilization to have a common | digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be | debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to | violence". [1] | | That might not be your cup of tea, or you might believe | Musk is too petulant a leader to bring that vision to | fruition. But it is an aspiration that will make _some_ | people excited and willing to put in the hard work Musk is | demanding. | | [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728 | d23 wrote: | > For Twitter, the vision Musk is selling is that "it is | important to the future of civilization to have a common | digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be | debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to | violence". [1] | | Musk seems like one of the people least capable on earth | of having a debate in a healthy manner. | rurp wrote: | >For Twitter, the vision Musk is selling is that "it is | important to the future of civilization to have a common | digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be | debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to | violence". | | Unless you make fun of the owner, that gets you banned | ASAP. | | Also, I don't think most people associate a massive | increase in hate speech and harassment with a healthy | town square. Threatening paying customers who show any | reticence is an "interesting" way to grow a business. | It's early still, but this has basically been the vision | pitch so far. | Barrin92 wrote: | >Why would any competent engineer sign up to work in the | environment Musk has created? | | same reason people worked for id software or other | companies with grueling cultures. Because working with | people who are excited about what they do and who are | fiercely loyal is great. It's not even really about Musk, | it's what has always drawn people to hard work. | hiq wrote: | Why would it be any different from his other companies? I | wouldn't apply, but if some people are willing to work at | Tesla, surely some are also willing to work at Musk- | Twitter? | fnordpiglet wrote: | Because Twitter isn't building space ships or changing | transportation, and the expected culture and benefits of | a software media company vs manufacturing company are | very different. | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | I agree, high performers can actually damage innovation by | stopping it. Since they own major systems, they control how | and what gets done. | CrimpCity wrote: | > What has Twitter innovated on in the past decade? | | They basically stole clubhouses' thunder with spaces and tbh | clubhouse has lost a lot of it's shine. | | Now did Twitter actually innovate? I would say not really but | they did reimplement the wheel and so far seems to be working | for them. I'd say the execution still counts as being | innovative. | jansan wrote: | _What has Twitter innovated on in the past decade?_ | | Bootstrap | madeofpalk wrote: | Past decade. Bootstrap is 11 years old. | ok123456 wrote: | It still gets updates. | madeofpalk wrote: | I don't think Twitter has had anything to do with | Bootstrap for a significantly long time. fat and mdo left | twitter 10 years ago. | mrits wrote: | That is kind of the opposite of innovating, no? The idea | that the company is depending on prior innovation? Unless | you are saying the updates contain innovation. | SkyPuncher wrote: | Setting aside the timeframe. | | Bootstrap is not a revenue generating function for them. | jansan wrote: | I admit I had the timeframe wrong, but whether it | generates revenue was not part of the question. | petsormeat wrote: | Can't tell if this is snark, but gotta hand it to the | Twitter Bootstrap project for making off-the-shelf CSS | libraries acceptable. | kevinventullo wrote: | They launched the predecessor to the current hottest social | media app but killed it before it could gain any popularity. | So that's a new way to shoot yourself in the foot. | rco8786 wrote: | > They launched | | They bought Vine. Story still holds though. | code_duck wrote: | Twitter acquired Vine before Vine launched. | antisthenes wrote: | They increased the message size from 140 to 280 characters, | allowing people to generate double the outrage with almost | the same network load. | hutzlibu wrote: | What does this has to do with Twitter stopping remote, which to | me is simply a statement of control freak Elon and nothing | else. | insane_dreamer wrote: | > You can't innovate and software engineer using 1950s style | "butts in seats" | | I like remote work too, but there's been plenty of innovation | pre-pandemic when we (almost) all had our butt in a seat | roughly wrote: | > What fundamentally does twitter do? | | Twitter does content moderation. That's your primary product | when you're a billion dollar advertising company with a content | farm of 300M people - your product is that the Ford ad you just | sold is not going to sit above or below an (actual no-foolin' | not just political-pejorative) neo-nazi. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | > an (actual no-foolin' not just political-pejorative) neo- | nazi | | Could you give me an example from the USA? | | > your product is that the ad you just sold is not going to | sit [near] | | The evolution of personalized feeds makes this less | important. It's not Ford gracing a page in NeoNazi's Monthly | magazine with their ad, it's your nazi-laden feed that | happens to get a truck ad in passing. | | > Twitter does content moderation. | | Not well. And not usefully. They tended to block speech they | don't like and leave worse from their friends. Blocking | scams, bots, and actual harm seems to take a backseat to | political stunts. | | To be useful it will need to be transparent and configurable, | and so far Twitter has focused on making it hidden and based | on their views, not the users' views. | hsuduebc2 wrote: | Nice idea have another 4chan with less gore | asdff wrote: | >What fundamentally does twitter do? Sell ads by moving data | around using enormous first mover advantage of account numbers. | And that needs a huge employee count why exactly? I am not | asking that it did, or it did in the early days of the | technology, or what the competitors do. | | The issue with this question is that you make big assumptions | to how the work should be. Sure to you and I maybe it takes 1 | person to unscrew a lightbulb, but that's given our assumptions | about the nature of the lightbulb and the whole job and where | it takes place. | | Maybe twitter built themselves such a lightbulb that its 50 | feet up high, and now you need to hire two people to change the | lightbulb, one up on the ladder 50 feet up and one on the | bottom. Maybe sometimes the latter falls, and historically the | ladder holder doesn't want to admit liability. Now you need a | third witness to make sure the ladder holder isn't murdering | the light bulb changer (seems contrived but e.g. jobs working | with children are like this where you need two adults in the | room)l. If the light bulb is made from hazardous materials | maybe you need a safety officer signing off on your process so | insurance companies actually cover you for the high risk of | murder in this line of work. Now we are at four people to | change the lightbulb and you'd be a fool to remove any of them | based on all the context I've given. Oh and you need to fill | these positions for three shifts, so twelve people on payroll | to ensure you are covered for lightbulbs around the clock. | | Its easy to add fat to a process, sometimes its very justified | fat, and hard to cut it out after the fact without damaging a | lot of other things you might not be accounting for at first | glance. Thats why people are giving Musk a huge side eye here, | because he couldn't have possibly accounted for everything | already. Most people who make sweeping changes to orgs | successfully start off by taking a lot of time to study how the | org works, and not changing much of anything that would taint | your observational study before its concluded. | snapcaster wrote: | >Interesting strategic window: You can't innovate and software | engineer using 1950s style "butts in seats" | | what is this statement based on? | alfiedotwtf wrote: | Factory production lines | lightbendover wrote: | > You can't innovate and software engineer using 1950s style | "butts in seats" | | This seems to be pulled from thin air. Nobody would have | murmured it 3 years ago. You really think the whole world | changed _that_ much in the past 3 years that you can lay down | such a superlative? | karaterobot wrote: | Reading generously, I would say you could interpret that | statement more like: "Now that we know it is possible to | innovate with an asynchronous workforce, and most people want | to work that way, it will be extremely difficult for us to | gather the same quality of individuals in one place to | innovate if we decide we need their butts to be in seats." | d23 wrote: | That's not a superlative, plenty of people had that opinion | before three years ago, and sure, why not, it's a web forum. | croes wrote: | >You really think the whole world changed that much in the | past 3 years that you can lay down such a superlative? | | Because 3 years ago people thought it wouldn't work. The | pandemic showed it does. | throwaway98797 wrote: | companies mad hired to offset productivity declines | | so many of that decline is because people can't be trusted | to workout without being baby sat | sangnoir wrote: | (Internet) companies mad-hired because they thought COVID | permanently accelerated the demand shift to online from | brick-and-mortar. It turned out it wasn't a new baseline | after all. | croes wrote: | Source? Or is it just hearsay? | mrits wrote: | I'm not sure a huge tech recession is exactly proof. | bart_spoon wrote: | In what way is the current tech recession related to | remote work, and not decades of free investment money | followed by massive inflation? | mrits wrote: | decades of free investment money you say? | protastus wrote: | > Maybe this is a signal twitter isn't going to innovate, | develop, and maybe even operate, internally, at least going | forward. | | It seems clear to me that Musk believes Twitter is | dysfunctional and inefficient. His top priority is to make it | efficient. From this perspective, as the right people and a | culture of intensity are set up, Twitter will be unburdened to | move and innovate. | | The open question is how quickly can he pivot the culture. | Nobody is better positioned than the CEO of a private company. | three_seagrass wrote: | >It seems clear to me that Musk believes Twitter is | dysfunctional and inefficient. His top priority is to make it | efficient. | | Is it though? | | Musk also thought twitter had a bot problem, right up until | it became apparent that saying so wouldn't get him out of the | Twitter acquisition. | | I think the only thing that's clear is that Musk has a | Twitter attention addiction, and buying Twitter was the | world's wealthiest man buying his favorite toy to play with. | throwuwu wrote: | He's continuing to repeat that getting rid of bots and spam | is a top priority so that's just straight up bull. | sakopov wrote: | > You can't innovate and software engineer using 1950s style | "butts in seats" | | Seems to me that the majority was innovating just fine this way | until pandemic hit. | willcipriano wrote: | Personally I haven't seen much innovation in the past decade | or so, you have to go back to before the VC's and pals | figured out how to game equity compensation with their | Hollywood accounting for any real innovation (in the consumer | space, other areas like medicine and space exploration have | had some big leaps). | | A person in 2012 could blow the mind of someone in 2002 with | the phone he has in his pocket. A 2012 person would yawn at a | 2022 phone and ask how they are meant to plug their | headphones in. | jmiskovic wrote: | Why call it 1950s style when it was most common mode of | operation up to 2019? Elon already insisted Tesla engineers | work on-site, so this move isn't too surprising. What leaves me | puzzled is why would anyone decide to work there. Where's the | carrot? | muro wrote: | I guess the pay is the carrot. As long as they pay well for | the requirements, there will be plenty people to take it. And | if the job market deteriorates, they might not even need to | pay that well... | purpleblue wrote: | Also the mission. If I didn't have a great gig right now, I | would absolutely join Twitter, just for the opportunity to | add new features and prove that the old Twitter was sorely | underperforming and that Twitter can be a force for free | speech, which I believe in an absolute right. | blackguardx wrote: | Elon's companies aren't known to pay particularly well. I | got an offer at one of his companies that was such an | insane lowball it was hard to take seriously. | steve_taylor wrote: | Because the 1950s is the only decade that's a villain. | madrox wrote: | I see we're still deep in the "fuck around" stage and have yet to | reach "find out." | quotemstr wrote: | What if the allegedly bad result doesn't ensue? | the_doctah wrote: | This will all be memory holed and never spoken of again | bombcar wrote: | Keep prophesying that it will or quietly drop it is the usual | method. | Exuma wrote: | sdd232332 wrote: | Exuma wrote: | Ok first comment guy | DoctorDabadedoo wrote: | You could do the same with your snarky and unpolite comments. | This is not a place for free harassment. | Exuma wrote: | I don't disagree with you sir | memish wrote: | What you find out is in proportion to how much you fuck around. | You have to fuck around to innovate and do new shit. It took a | lot of fucking at Tesla and SpaceX to get to where they are. | voxl wrote: | The cult of personality never ceases to amaze me. | matthewmcg wrote: | Fuck around and find out.....about Kessler syndrome? | | (I am being glib, but this is potentially a real problem, see | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs- | starlink-...) | HideousKojima wrote: | All Starlink sats will deorbit in under 5 years if | unmaintained, please get a basic understanding of orbital | mechanics before repeating nonsense like this. | | Edit: And shame on Scientific American for spreading the | same nonsense. | | Also Starlink has automated collision avoidance systems | that make them even less likely to collide than most sats | currently in orbit, see the comments on this thread: https: | //www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/p7c96z/spacex_starli... | matthewmcg wrote: | Well, even though you consider it "nonsense" it was | serious enough to be given consideration in their | regulatory approvals. | r0m4n0 wrote: | They fucked around when they were a startup. It's not often | we get to see the fuck around at this level. It's his and he | can do as he pleases which makes this more entertaining than | anything I've ever witnessed | arez wrote: | that's the same steps to fuck it up btw | cbtacy wrote: | Enron.... | advisedwang wrote: | Levereged buyouts, charging for features that were free, mass | layoffs, strict workplace policies are hardly innovation. | They're tried and tested standard boring-ass Jack Welch | business practices. | newfonewhodis wrote: | I like how some people equate "innovate" with "break the law | and make other people pay". | memish wrote: | Do they? You're the first one I've seen who has equated | those two things. | [deleted] | marcosdumay wrote: | It's good that he is throwing every known bad practice that | managers keep practicing on it to ensure he will find out the | correct result. | | But he has mixed so many stupid bullshit at this point that I | expect people to refuse to learn any lesson from it, always | blaming the problem at some different action. | pvg wrote: | _Omit internet tropes._ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | benlivengood wrote: | Amusing that as CEO/Owner of >1 company there's no way for Musk | to "work in the office". Will he fire himself? | boredtofears wrote: | I have to admit if I was an executive and I watched one of those | "day in the life of" tiktoks from twitter employees that show | them spending maybe 20% of their day doing work and the other 80% | enjoying company amenities I might be considering tightening | things up as well. | Phelinofist wrote: | Link to video for anyone who didn't see it yet (like me): | https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1585395267552960512 | JakeTheAndroid wrote: | Wait, so you have an employee that can get all their work done | using 20% of their working hours and then spend the rest of | their day ensuring they don't burn out and you want to become | adversarial to that employee? | | Because clearly they are getting stuff done if they can post | that video and not get fired. Otherwise, you have a low | performer slacking off which is its own, completely separate | issue from the video itself. | | It's like that quote from The Office where Michael says Jim is | a lazy worker because it takes Jim 20 minutes to complete a | project that would take Michael hours to complete. Seems like | you're saying you want your least efficient employees and can't | be bothered to understand the working habits of your most | efficient employees. | | Or maybe, just maybe, using time as a sole metric isn't the | best way to evaluate employee effectiveness or efficiency. | boredtofears wrote: | You're missing several other options: | | B) no one is paying that close attention to their performance | in the first place or the metrics for performance themselves | are setup in such a way that can be gamified and are | therefore meaningless. | | C) there really isn't enough work to justify a FTE for it. | | My hunch is that its a combination of these two. | | I've worked long enough to know that the mean time for work | completion (assuming C is not the predominant factor) is more | than 20% of your work week. | JakeTheAndroid wrote: | I am not missing those options at all. It's just that the | video is not the issue nor the way time can be spent at the | company. If your metrics for evaluating performance is | wrong that should be addressed before becoming adversarial | to your employees based on a flawed perception. | | And if there isn't enough work to justify a FTE, then again | your metrics are bad. The forecast was not accurate enough. | And the only way to know if that's true or not is to fix | the formula, do the math again, and figure out the truth. | | In both scenarios the employee isn't necessarily the | problem, or even a problem at all. | | And if we take a step back and evaluate the source | material, it's a TikTok video. It's meant to be content. Do | we even know if the employee is really only working 20% of | the time? We aren't getting a 16 hour live stream here, | it's short form content. The truth of the matter is heavily | obscured. | | It just seems like a bad idea to me to base you're business | decisions around a TikTok video, especially when it's one | that is adversarial to your employees. Instead, spend the | time to understand the reality. Like we might find that the | employee is actually working 90% of their workday. And then | suddenly you're making decisions that never need to be made | in the first place. | | > I've worked long enough to know that the mean time for | work completion (assuming C is not the predominant factor) | is more than 20% of your work week. | | Depends heavily on function. Plenty of roles are somewhat | peaks and valleys of backlogged work. There might be times | where some employees really can get their work done using | 20% of their day, but then at a different stage they would | need to use way more than 20%. | boredtofears wrote: | Yeah, I'm not a twitter exec but presumably would be | making decisions off of more than just a TikTok video. I | don't think any of your argument is counter to mine. | | It doesn't take a genius to observe that there may be | some fat to cut. | JakeTheAndroid wrote: | I mean I agree, there is probably fat to cut. But the | premise was that if you were an exec and saw that video | you'd then consider tightening up the amenities. And if | you're basing that decision on a TikTok video that seems | a bit short sighted to me. | | If you're tightening up the available amenities that | should be based on totally different data that has | nothing to do with a social media post. | boredtofears wrote: | This is just more straw-manning. The video either leaves | an impression on you or it doesn't. It's really not | possible to have a meaningful argument about the actions | inferred from an ambiguous statement like "I might be | considering tightening things up". | | The video struck me as particularly brash given the | current economic climate. | tomjakubowski wrote: | Why would you assume that a video posted to social media is at | all representative of someone's work day? The actual work is | usually really dull. | adwn wrote: | That video was recorded _while being at the office_. If | anything, it 's evidence against the supposed effectiveness of | forbidding remote work. | boredtofears wrote: | Right. I mean, bringing back everyone to the office would | just be a part of the tightening, which is quite obviously | happening with Musk's reign. | the_doctah wrote: | Not every office is a daycare for Gen Z complete with wine on | tap. SV workers are spoiled. | kevingadd wrote: | '20% of the day doing work and 80% enjoying company amenities' | is ridiculous hyperbole. even if a hypothetical employee is | doing that, putting them in the office clearly isn't enough to | fix it since they supposedly put a tiktok video up saying 'i | don't do my job' and they weren't fired | boredtofears wrote: | It's not hyperbole, unless whoever was recording was being | hyperbolic. It's not exactly hard to find the videos I'm | talking about. | kweingar wrote: | If we were watching the same videos, they showed themselves | getting lunch, getting coffee, going to the gym, and | hanging out on the roof. None of these videos suggested | that these activities totaled anywhere close to 6 hours in | a day. | | Maybe we're watching different videos though. | [deleted] | rgovostes wrote: | > over the next few days, the absolute top priority is finding | and suspending any verified bots/trolls/spam. | | Would it improve the situation to simply require a CAPTCHA once | per day per non-subscriber to tweet? I would think it would | greatly increase the cost to operate a troll farm, but have | minimal impact on real users (setting aside accessibility and | third-party clients a moment). If it causes attrition because | some people decide it's not worth two seconds of clicking fire | hydrants to voice their thought, nothing of value was lost. | bogota wrote: | I spent less than a dollar one day to automate solving some | stupid government website form that i was scraping data from. I | have no experience in that but it was pretty easy and captchas | are close to worthless for any bad actor with even half a brain | Balgair wrote: | Not a bad idea, but, like, Elon's just gonna change his mind | again by next week. | geoffeg wrote: | "We've dispatched a Tesla Model 3 to your current browser's | location. To verify you are not a robot you must drive it for | one hour and achieve a better Safety Score than the built-in | autopilot is capable of achieving." | Matheus28 wrote: | Captcha solvers charge less than $4 per 1000 solved captchas. | It'd likely still be worth it to do that sort of spam. | ballenf wrote: | Hopefully it wouldn't make the well-funded bots more | successful. | marak830 wrote: | I can't see a reason they would become more successful if | there is less competition. It's not like they are not | sending spam if someone else has spammed a target recently | lol. | sergeym wrote: | There is reCAPTCHA version where the visual challenge for users | is not required with almost the same accuracy. | https://cloud.google.com/recaptcha-enterprise/docs/choose-ke... | spbaar wrote: | Use the 4chan captchas those are the hardest things ive done | since calculus | avian wrote: | > some people decide it's not worth two seconds of clicking | fire hydrants | | My reaction when I get the fire hydrants/traffic | lights/whatever thing is to not bother and close the site. It's | not because I can't spare two seconds, but because from past | experience I know that whenever I get this it's an unending | captcha hell. | | It seems that these days the only time you're given a captcha | is when some AI somewhere already decided that you're a bad | actor and won't let you to the site, no matter how diligently | you keep clicking page after pages of challenges. | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | Do you use a vpn? | gw98 wrote: | This. My attention is worth more than that. | FredPret wrote: | Right? The reward for identifying all the traffic lights is | that you get to identify all the boats, then all the stop | signs. Wait, what were you trying to do again? | awinder wrote: | You'd need to do this TO the subscribers because the problem | he's trying to address is that now there's a bunch of fake | people with a "verified" status who are running scams on people | or polluting news (like Fake Verified Labron James trade news | going wild before realizing, wait, it's a fake). | | So then the downside is that you start bouncing people because | is a checkmark worth getting captchas? Or maybe you put | captchas on everyone so that the experience blows for everyone, | and pray it helps? | | Or maybe you just don't conflate paying $8 with being | "verified", unless you're gonna, yknow, verify something. | bmitc wrote: | I bet this will be the code: bots |> | List.filter isNotTeslaBot |> removeBots | jmyeet wrote: | There is a lot I love about the Elon Twitter saga. Scoping it to | this issue (remote work): | | 1. We all know that "butts in seats" is a form of psychological | control. Yes, there can be benefits to physical proximity. For | software engineers, there can be benefit for collaboration, team- | building and teaching. You can do this remotely but it's more | difficult. However, for a lot of jobs however there is absolutely | zero benefit to the employee. | | 2. This should remind people that your relationship with your | employer is fundamentally adversarial. Remote work, despite it | saving tech companies in particular, a lot of money for office | space, onsite perks, equipment and so on, sold it to you as a | "benefit". It started out of necessity in the pandemic. More | recently it became a compeititve necessary to draw and retain | talent in a tight labor market. In an era of mass layoffs in tech | that advantage is no longer needed so companies can revert to | their natural state of seeking control and not offering benefits | they don't have to; | | 3. Elon is a very old school American (ironic, considering he's | South African) boss who very much rules out of fear and for whom | loyalty only flows in one direction: up (to him). He is not Tony | Stark or Bruce Wayne. He's just another annoying, cringey, | incredibly privileged fail-son. I'm honestly glad more people are | realizing this as this is not the man to deify; | | 4. Morale among the remaining Twitter staff must be (I would | guess) incredibly bad right now. Rather than extending these | people an olive branch, the Bataan death march of reshaping | Twitter into Musk's soulless image continues without respite, | casulaties be damned; and | | 5. For many this will be there first downturn market as you could | easily have been in the workforce for the last 12 years without | ever experiencing it. You may have bought into the idea, | particularly if you're an engineer or other highly specialized | position, bought into the idea that tech companies are different | and/or that you aren't expendable or replaceable. None of this is | true. Unfortunately, people (Americans in particular) use such | rationalizations to argue against any form of labor organization | as being unnecessary or that somehow they'll all be dragged down | to the "average" by collective bargaining. Such ideas are just | highly effective propaganda. | | Sorry Tweeps for all you're going through. | jimmypoop wrote: | What are the chances that Musk composed and sent this email while | working remotely? Very high I reckon. | memish wrote: | That's not the gotcha you think it is. | d23 wrote: | It checks out as a great gotcha to me. | seaman1921 wrote: | so ? | fortuna86 wrote: | 100%. Rules are for other people. | mirekrusin wrote: | Same rule, he explicitly stated remote work is allowed if | approved (by him). | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | You can't expect getting paid and set the rules. If you don't | like it, stop receiving pay, that allowes you to ignore the | rules. It's fair. | fortuna86 wrote: | Getting paid doesn't change the fact that the employees are | the ones actually making Twitter work. If Twitter were a | car, it would have an owner. | bigfudge wrote: | Some rules are not allowed. | | Not allowing remote work is still allowed, but I don't | think it's far away from being socially unacceptable. Being | legally unacceptable is just one step beyond that. | ben_w wrote: | While true, I don't think that's pertinent. | | This is more of a "if you don't like it, buy the company" | situation. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | No need to buy the company, anyone can always start a new | one, it's very affordable, just a few hundred bucks. Then | you can set whatever rules you want for yourself and your | employees. | kodah wrote: | Executives at tech companies tend to live very different lives | from the people doing the work. Exceptionalism is typically | baked into their understanding of the world. | burkaman wrote: | Related, what are the odds that Musk would be cool with any | Twitter employee taking multiple other full-time jobs at the | same time? | gunapologist99 wrote: | He is simply doing what he believes is in the shareholders' | best interests. | | If you bought a company, especially a failing company, it | wouldn't be business as usual: you would immediately set | policies that make the most sense for your shareholders and | increase profits. | | And, Musk has a reputation to be a very hard 24x7 worker but | also one not bound by a timezone, let alone geographic | location, but again it's a lot easier for him to note | dedication etc based on who actually shows up to work. This | might be an undeserved reputation, but he is clearly "on" | texting and tweeting at all hours day-and-night, and he's | running multiple successful companies simultaneously, so | either he's awesome at delegation or he's working very hard | (or both). | | (of course, he has other shareholders, but he _is_ clearly | the majority shareholder and the one who is completely in | control of the board, and thus has the greatest legal | responsibility to keep twitter solvent and return value to | himself and the other investors.) | threeseed wrote: | Twitter doesn't have shareholders. But Tesla and SpaceX | does. | | And not sure how happy they are with Musk and employees not | being fully committed to adding value to their investments. | Especially given that both companies have serious | competition that is increasingly in quality and | aggressiveness as each day passes. | | On a sidenote, any manager who measures dedication by | number of physical hours at the office is either | inexperienced or incompetent. | gunapologist99 wrote: | Sorry, you are misinformed. | | All private corporations in the U.S. have shareholders. | (LLC's have members, which are similar.) | | The executive team and board of those private | corporations have a fiduciary duty to the corporation | that they will take actions to increase their investment. | | Twitter has at least one major shareholder, Elon Musk, | which is why I jokingly wrote "the shareholder" | singularly. He also seems to have other institutional | shareholders, but it's unclear if he just personally owes | the money or if they have taken a collateral interest in | Twitter itself. (The latter seems more likely) | | Thus, Elon Musk has a fiduciary obligation to his | shareholder(s), even if it was just him (it's not). | | Like it or not, he is taking steps to reduce the drag on | Twitter's finances because he doesn't have a lot of | choice. | | After burning _hundreds of millions of dollars_ for | years, he 's got to cut the fat quickly or the company | will become insolvent. | cwkoss wrote: | > Musk is known to be a very hard 24x7 worker | | This is just PR. Seems naive to believe the emperor is | wearing clothes. | avbanks wrote: | I never actually thought about this but you make a good | point. | DrBenCarson wrote: | I mean he seems totally fine with it, Tesla engineers are | working at Twitter at Tesla investors' expense. | tomschlick wrote: | Whats to say those engineers aren't taking PTO time or a | leave of absence and getting paid a consulting rate by | Elon/Twitter? | cma wrote: | Burning out your employees with highly technical work on | your other company during PTO seems almost as bad. | Thrymr wrote: | "Other times, two Tesla employees told CNBC, Tesla | workers are pressured to help with projects at his other | companies for no additional pay because it's good for | their careers, or because the work is seen as helping | with a related party transaction or project." | | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/31/elon-musk-has-pulled- | more-th... | hnews_account_1 wrote: | CEO is not in office because he needs to conduct business. The | fucking TRAVESTY!! | kleiba wrote: | "Quod licet iovi non licet bovi." | valbaca wrote: | It's pretty obvious that Musk is willfully (or ignorantly) | forcing people out of the company in order to pre-filter before | layoffs. | | If you're at Twitter and can get a job elsewhere, don't panic. | Save up, apply elsewhere, quiet-quit but DO NOT QUIT. Make them | fire you or lay you off. MAKE them payout the severance! Don't | let Musk toss you out for free. | alistairSH wrote: | So, he fires thousands of them while hob-knobbing with other | billionaires on the other side of the country. | | And his first company-wide communication is rescinding previous | WFH policies without much reason. | | What an absolute knob. | | Edit to add... He demanded a company-wide all-hands on one hours | notice, then appeared 15 minute late. I hope every employee worth | their salary walks, Twitter implodes, and Musk loses much of his | fortune and all of his cachet. What a narcissistic asshole. | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | I think the notion of a CEO doing all the things their workers | do purely out of solidarity to be shallow and condescending. | Obviously his job is different from theirs and he is going to | have a different set of rules. And I doubt any of them would | want to put in the number of hours he puts in. He's clearly a | workaholic. | khazhoux wrote: | > I doubt any of them would want to put in the number of | hours he puts in. | | I guess that would depend on whether they'd be getting | employee comp/equity, or Elon's comp/equity. | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | My point is, gestures like "you're coming into the office, | so I'm coming into the office" are simultaneously empty and | counterproductive. His job involves travel, period. And | besides, he owns the place. | VBprogrammer wrote: | It's an interesting look from someone claiming to believe that | climate change is one of the biggest threats to humanity. | Better get those expensive developers working from the office | again so they keep buying expensive electric cars... | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | Let's not pretend his goal was to sell more cars; that's | ridiculous. | | But to your point, he's always seemed to have this philosophy | that climate mitigation doesn't have to be a compromise. In | his vision of the future we do all the things we do now _and | more_ , but we do them better. | SQueeeeeL wrote: | Isn't the Hyperloop regularly derided by those in the | environmental community for distracting from more | useful/environmentally sustainable transit solutions. Tesla | also bifurcated the charger ports on the market, which has | slowed adoption of EV chargers by businesses. Definitely a | more complicated relationship than a surface level analysis | would imply | bmitc wrote: | I saw a stat recently that an electric car removes about as | much emissions as a meter of road adds. | | Electric cars are the most overblown response to climate | change. They will help in a myopic way when comparing | directly to combustion cars over several years (electric cars | only start to save emissions somewhere between them being | driven 6-24 months into their ownership), but I doubt it's | much more than that and even possibly a net increase in | emissions in terms of furthering the dominance of the car. | | Elon Musk doesn't care about anything other than his ego. | VBprogrammer wrote: | I think there are many many good reasons for electric cars. | Climate change is quite far down the list though. | | That said, today I went into the office in central London | for the first time in a while and was kind of shocked. | While crossing the road to get a burrito I was consciously | keeping track of the electric cars which went past. It felt | like every other car. Then I got on the electric bus back | to the train station and passed the drop off point for what | must of been close to a hundred Lime electric bikes. There | is a palpable change and I for one think it's exciting. | | It's just a shame Elon is such a, ahem, character. | ideaz wrote: | Maybe in his genius mind thats how he will get them to buy more | Teslas. | micromacrofoot wrote: | Some people at Twitter have remote work in their employment | contract. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Those same contracts allow that employees can be let go. It's | not really the gotcha people think it is. | micromacrofoot wrote: | The couple people I knew with remote work in their contracts | actually want to be let go at this point, wasn't saying it | was a gotcha -- but they'll need to renegotiate or be | terminated. | cbtacy wrote: | And Musk has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no respect for | legal contracts. | gist wrote: | A legal contract is only as good as someone's ability to | enforce it. Otherwise the idea that it's some kind of a bond | and companies or people should or do just 'the right thing' | is not unfortunately reality. | | I would not say he has any more or less respect for legal | contracts than any other 'typical' company or business person | (from my experience). | smeagull wrote: | Seems like you'd end remote work before firing everybody, because | now you have no idea if you're going to be able to keep the | people you thought you could. | | If you were planning these moves of course. | Balgair wrote: | I think that the NYT article has the much better lede from the | emails in it: | | Due to resignations by 3 top execs yesterday, engineers are now | likely to have to make sure that their code is compliant with the | FTC w.r.t. the 2011 judgement against Twitter. | | As in, there is a good chance that individual SWEs at Twitter are | going to be legally culpable for violations. | | Even if I am _totally_ misreading that quick lede about dense | legalese (likely), it still says that Twitter currently has no | reasonable way to stay in the FTC 's good graces for the | foreseeable future. | | Y'all, don't try to appease a billionaire and get yourself in | legal trouble. Don't even try to chance it. Walk away. | neuronexmachina wrote: | More info about that: | https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/23451198/twitter-ftc-elo... | | > The FTC reached a settlement with Twitter in May after the | company was caught using personal user info to target ads. If | Twitter doesn't comply with that agreement, the FTC can issue | fines reaching into the billions of dollars, according to the | lawyer's note to employees. | | > The note goes on to say that its author, who The Verge knows | the identity of but is choosing not to disclose, has "heard | Alex Spiro (current head of Legal) say that Elon is willing to | take on a huge amount of risk in relation to this company and | its users, because 'Elon puts rockets into space, he's not | afraid of the FTC.'" | | > Musk's new legal department is now asking engineers to "self- | certify" compliance with FTC rules and other privacy laws, | according to the lawyer's note and another employee familiar | with the matter, who requested anonymity to speak without the | company's permission. | | > The employee said this week's launch of the revamped Twitter | Blue subscription disregarded the company's normal privacy and | security review, with a "red team" reviewing potential risks | the night before the launch. "The people normally tasked with | this stuff were given little notice, little time, and | unreasonable to think it [the privacy review] was | comprehensive." None of the red team's recommendations were | implemented before Twitter Blue's relaunch, the employee said. | gunapologist99 wrote: | burner456123890 wrote: | Seeing as you're a gun apologist (#99), am I correct | interpreting this as approval? | canucklady wrote: | Twitter entered into a voluntary agreement to avoid | prosecution. | mig39 wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a consent decree | something that all parties agree to, in order to avoid | going to court? | ryandrake wrote: | Asking software engineers to make legal determinations on | behalf of the company. What could possibly go wrong? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Due to resignations by 3 top execs yesterday, engineers are | now likely to have to make sure that their code is compliant | with the FTC w.r.t. the 2011 judgement against Twitter. | | I think that's backwards: the resignations by people | responsible for compliance were due (among other issues) to the | policy change (which they see as violating the order, which | would put them _personally_ at risk) that the process would | change to engineer self-certification to support the desired | velocity of change, the resignations were not the cause of the | change. | | Also, Twitter apparently has a sworn compliance report due | _today_ to the FTC (14 days from the change of ownership.) | | https://twitter.com/Riana_Crypto/status/1590741781666488320?... | [deleted] | [deleted] | fermentation wrote: | How does that work? If a SWE isn't aware of the gazillion laws | surrounding their code, why isn't the company liable when X of | those laws are inevitably violated? | | What about the people who review the code? Or the people who | wrote the systems that push the code? | badwolf wrote: | It seems Musk's new legal "department" is wanting developers | to self-certify - put their own name on the certification. | | https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/23451198/twitter-ftc- | elo... | leftcenterright wrote: | Looking at how complex Twitter's internal systems appear to | be based on Mudge's report [1], I doubt informed developers | would dare certify things they do not fully understand. | Depends a bit on what entity (system, service, environment) | they have to certify. | | > In January 2022, Mudge determined and reported to the | executive team that (because of poor engineering | architecture decisions that preceded Mudge's employment) | Twitter had over 300 corporate systems and upwards of | 10,000 services that might still be affected, but Twitter | was unable to thoroughly assess its exposure to Log4j and | did not have capacity, if pressed in a formal | investigation, to show to the FTC that the company had | properly remediated the problem. | | > Mudge knew that the actual underlying data showed that at | the end of 2021, 51 % of the ~ 11 thousand full-time | employees had privileged access to Twitter's production | systems, a 5% increase from the 46% of total employees in | February of 2021 that Mudge had shared in his initial | findings delivered to the Board in early 2021 | | 1. https://techpolicy.press/wp- | content/uploads/2022/08/whistleb... | [deleted] | nrmitchi wrote: | This is just another way to materially change the job | position to force people to quit. | | I would also be shocked if the FTC accepted a certification | from anyone that is not qualified and does not have the | appropriate support system in place to certify. | Balgair wrote: | To be clear, the FTC is more than happy to pursue | _criminal_ charges against individuals when they screw with | users. | | The (former) CSO of Uber, Joseph Sullivan, is now a felon | because of a 2016 hack of Uber and his attempts to cover up | the hack. | | Joe is looking at a potential of 5 years in a _federal_ | prison, where there is no time off for good behavior and | the like. In the Fed, you serve the whole sentence (some | caveats do apply). He 'll also loose the right to vote and | hold public office, employment rights, domestic rights, and | financial and contractual rights, plus a lot of | 'probationary' issues. This will follow him for the rest of | his life, likely. | | https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-chief- | security-o... | Abroszka wrote: | Wow, if that means that the engineer is personally | responsible that Twitter follows the FTC rules, then RIP | the engineers. I would just stop writing code at that | point. No compensation worth that risk. | | And it opens up interesting questions. If I decline to | implement something then can the company fire me at all? Or | do they have to prove first that what has been asked does | not goes against FTC rules. | [deleted] | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I said before: "His company. He can do whatever he wants." | | That said, good luck with all that Elon. | | Unless the goal is to sink Twitter down, in which case it is a | brilliant move, there is zero reason for RTO. | slg wrote: | Let's say you run a company and you want to reduce staff. Let's | also say you want to make an unpopular decision (or multiple | unpopular decisions) that you know will drive a certain | percentage of your staff to leave the company. Wouldn't it make | the most sense to announce those decisions before making layoffs? | Let people self select whether they want to stay and work for you | and then make your layoffs after to ensure all teams are properly | staffed. Instead, Musk has already laid people off to the point | that they are trying to hire back people previously laid off and | current employees are sleeping in the office. Now he is pushing | even more people out the door with no control over what teams | will be hurt the hardest. | Zigurd wrote: | This is the part you are overthinking: "Wouldn't it make the | most sense..." | | It would makes sense to hire a CEO. It would make sense to plan | a layoff so you don't have to beg key people to return, etc. | Musk frames this as making mistakes while working fast. | | In this case it _will_ push more people to leave. There is | probably intent, if not exactly thought and planning behind | this because Really Bad Things have not happened yet. | | An indication that might change is that the CISO, security | chief, and privacy chief resigned together, possibly with | advice of counsel re the two FTC consent decrees. | rodgerd wrote: | It's funny how people will argue "never attribute to malice | what can be explained by incompetence" to excuse an | institution or individual they like, but here people are | bending over backwards to justify Musk's behaviour at Twitter | as the performance of an evil genius playing a game that | we're too subtle to understand, rather than those of a bully | fool who is burning his life down thanks, apparently, to a | crippling social media addiction and an inability to get over | his ex. | skellington wrote: | bmitc wrote: | > Or maybe he's just a guy that believes in free speech | and wants to change Twitter for the better | | How many times does this need to debunked? Elon Musk has | a long and storied history, with direct evidence, of | attacking and taking punitive, perceived or actual, | action on anyone that has even mildly disagreed with him. | He even tweeted, several times I might add, "Chomsky | sucks" just because Chomsky said a few mild things that | disagreed with Musk. | | > which includes making it not hemorrhage money | | Why does he even care enough about it? Oh yea, Twitter is | a source of people disagreeing with him. Further, he | overnight added billions of dollars of debt to Twitter. | mhoad wrote: | I don't know how anyone could possibly still believe | something like that at this point. The past two weeks | have just been one argument after another against every | point you just made. | lovich wrote: | > Or maybe he's just a guy that believes in free | speech... | | Lol, that's some good comedy. He's already gone on a ban | run of people mocking him. He didn't even make a month | before showing his true colors on this talking point. | heavyset_go wrote: | He's already literally silencing his critics on Twitter. | throwuwu wrote: | Maybe you don't remember the 80s but this is how pretty | much every hostile takeover went down. Leveraged buyout > | massive layoffs and restructuring > change in business | model and the next thing we'll likely see is some form of | selling off assets or divisions, not sure what those would | be in Twitter's case but it won't be a surprise if they | come up with something. | Zigurd wrote: | There were a lot of awful LBOs, but Elon may take the | cake. Even the worst LBOs had a business case, even if in | terms of asset stripping, outsourcing, channel stuffing, | and other aggressive financial engineering. | | When Elon bought it Twitter had no free cash flow, | existing long term debt, no assets to sell, etc. It's an | enormous LBO with strange characteristics done by a guy | with no LBO experience, advised by Jason Calacanis and | David Sacks. | | This will be a b-school case study classic. | valarauko wrote: | _It 's funny how people will argue "never attribute to | malice what can be explained by incompetence" ..._ | | _... but here people are bending over backwards to justify | Musk 's behaviour ..._ | | My issue with arguments like these is that these are | collective opinions held by different segments of people, | not some nebulous singular person whose opinion can be | safely discarded because of contradictory statements. | mastazi wrote: | At first this was my thinking as well, but then towards the end | of the article, the author mentions an "all hands meeting" he | had with employees before completing the acquisition, and | apparently he said in that occasion that he was against remote | work. | | Having said that, remote work is up there with compensation in | my book, taking it away is just as likely[1] as a salary cut to | make leave the company. | | [1] i.e. almost guaranteed | cmh89 wrote: | Getting rid of remote work is an excellent way to chase away | your best employees while retaining people with nowhere to | go. | Barrin92 wrote: | the correlation in my experience is if anything the other | way around. The best and most productive employees tend to | be involved and in-person is still the best way to get | things done and actually exchange ideas. This is the one | thing Musk is 100% right about, remote work is awful for | productivity and it's most popular among the "least amount | of effort" crowd. It's also why almost any major tech | company after covid is trying to scale remote work back | again. | Crusoe123 wrote: | You do realize that doing something with the "least | amount of effort" is the definition of productivity? | Archelaos wrote: | You need to include the commuting time into the | productivity calculation. If a person has to commute 1 | hour for 200 days a year while working for 40 years, this | would result in 8,000 hours of work-related | unproductivity during a life, which is equivalent to 5 | full years of work. This is the benchmark that you first | have to surpass. In other words: such a person needs to | be on average 12.5 percent more productive on site than | at home to break even. | cmh89 wrote: | >The best and most productive employees tend to be | involved and in-person is still the best way to get | things done and actually exchange ideas. | | I'm having a hard time believing this. The people in my | company who want to end remote work were the people that | needed it for a social output. Nothing as shown that | productivity suffered during the pandemic due to remote | work. | | >This is the one thing Musk is 100% right about, | | Elon Musk is a 100% remote worker. | | >t's also why almost any major tech company after covid | is trying to scale remote work back again. | | Hard disagree, most companies want people back in the | office because they are run by middle managers who have | spent their careers climbing the ladder by putting in | face time and building relationships. Remote work is a | huge detriment to that style of career advancement. They | basically want everyone back in the office so they, the | middle managers, can feel productive. | | There is a reason they focus on abstract concepts like | water cooler conversations rather than hard data. The | data says there isn't a problem | ilyt wrote: | That entirely depends on type of work. We do 1-2 days on | site a week and it works well, we can get all of the | management and coordination done then then just code away | in peace without interruption. But that's programming, | some jobs are less dependent on communication, some are | more. | heavyset_go wrote: | Changes in terms of employment, like going from WFH to | mandatory in-office, makes employees eligible to collect | unemployment should they choose to quit. It's one of the few | reasons you can collect unemployment after voluntarily | quitting. | | Such a move can back fire, and more people can quit than you | planned on laying off, and that can make your UI liabilities | larger than they would have been with just a layoff. | kazinator wrote: | Hard to say! Because, look. Suppose you begin not with layoffs | but with the announcement "everyone back in the office for | 40h/wk", knowing that people will leave. At that point, you | don't get to choose who will leave, and it won't necessarily be | the less productive fraction of the employees. | boatsie wrote: | I think you have it backwards. This is how you accomplish a 75% | reduction while only having to lay off (and pay severance for) | 50%! Musk again playing 4d chess. | warinukraine wrote: | No, you have it backwards. If you wanted 75% reduction while | only having to lay off 50%, you make the unpopular decision | _first_, and then the lay offs. | etothepii wrote: | Indeed, that means you only have to pay 25% while achieving | a 75% reduction. Though it's hard to believe there's a game | plan here. | | However, I have a suspicion that there is a certain type of | person with low self esteem and high intelligence that will | respond very well to being treated this badly. | Taniwha wrote: | 4D chess? he doesn't have the self control, too busy haring | off tilting at windmills to launch his damned spaceship | RavingGoat wrote: | You confusing 4d chess with Candyland. | gamblor956 wrote: | Forcing people who were told they can work fully remote in | their employment agreement to work in the office is treated | as a constructive dismissal in the U.S. | | As this constructive dismissal is clearly part of the mass | layoffs, they would also be subject to the 60 days notice | under the WARN Act (or 60 days pay to waive notice). | DoneWithAllThat wrote: | "Is clearly" is doing a lot of work here, and I suspect | Twitter's lawyers don't share your investment in it. | iudqnolq wrote: | Then why did Twitter's top lawyers just quit? You're | being optimistic in expecting Twitter's legal team were | even told about this plan in advance, considering HR | wasn't. | cokeandpepsi wrote: | Jason: Back of the envelope... Twitter revenue per employee: | $5B rev / 8k employees = $625K rev per employee in 2021 Google | revenue per employee: $257B rev2/ 135K employee2= $1.9M per | employee in 2021 Apple revenue per employee: $365B rev / 154k | employees= $2.37M per employee in fiscal 2021 | | Jason: Twitter revenue per employee if 3k instead of 8k: $5B | rev/ 3k employees= $1.66m rev per employee in 2021 (more | industry standard) | | Elon: ["emphasized" above] | | Elon: Insane potential for improvement | | Jason: <Attachment-image/gif-lMG_2241.GIF> | | Jason: Day zero | | Jason: Sharpen your blades boys | | Jason: 2 day a week Office requirement= 20% voluntary | departures | | Jason: | https://twitter.com/jason/status/1515094823337832448?s=1O&t=... | | Jason: I mean, the product road map is beyond obviously | | Jason: Premium feature abound ... and twitter blue has exactly | zero [unknown emoji] | | Jason: What committee came up with the list of dog shit | features in Blue?!? It's worth paying to turn it off | | Elon: Yeah, what an insane piece of shit! | | Jason: Maybe we don't talk twitter on twitter OM @ | | Elon: Was just thinking that haha | [deleted] | lbhdc wrote: | What is the source for this conversation? | zimpenfish wrote: | https://muskmessages.com/d/34.html | Topgamer7 wrote: | It took me way to long to see that Like " ... " meant the | emote on the message. | diydsp wrote: | This is an incredible link... | | >Day zero 2022-04-15 17:22:12 ( CDT ) | | >Sharpen your blades boys 2022-04-15 17:22:59 ( CDT ) | | >2 day a week Office requirement = 20 % voluntary | departures | | --- | | These people really don't understand the branding of | Apple vs Twitter: | | >Back of the envelope ... Twitter revenue per employee : | $ 5B rev / 8k employees = $ 625K rev per employee in 2021 | Google revenue per employee : $ 257B rev / 135K employee | = $ 1.9M per employee in 2021 Apple revenue per employee | : $ 365B rev / 154k employees = $ 2.37M per employee in | fiscal 2021 2022-04-15 17:08:07 ( CDT ) | | >Twitter revenue per employee if 3k instead of 8k : $ 5B | rev / 3k employees = $ 1.66m rev per employee in 2021 ( | more industry standard ) | | --- | | hard to tell if this is sarcasm?! | | >I will be universally beloved , since it is so easy to | please everyone on twitter 2022-04-23 21:04:30 ( CDT ) | | >It feels like everyone wants the same exact thing , and | they will be patient and understanding of any changes ... | Twitter Stans are a reasonable , good faith bunch | 2022-04-23 21:06:51 ( CDT ) | | >These dipshits spent a years on twitter blue to give | people exactly .... Nothing they want ! | | --- | | The sycophantism is over 9k: | | > Morgan Stanley and Jared think you are using our | friendship not in a good way 2022-05-12 19:31:12 ( CDT ) | | >This makes it seem like I'm desperate . 2022-05-12 | 19:31:17 ( CDT ) | | >Please stop 2022-05-12 19:31:48 ( CDT ) | | >Only ever want to support you . 2022-05-12 19:37:49 ( | CDT ) | | >Clearly you're not desperate - you have the worlds | greatest investors voting in support of a deal you | already have covered . you're overfunded . will quietly | cancel it ... And to be clear , I'm not out actively | soliciting folks . These are our exiting LPs not rondos . | Sorry for any trouble 2022-05-12 19:55:14 ( CDT ) | | >Morgan Stanley and Jared are very upset 2022-05-12 | 19:55:55 ( CDT ) | | >Ugh 2022-05-12 19:58:44 ( CDT ) | | >SPVs are how everyone is doing there deals now ... Luke | loved to SPVS etc 2022-05-12 19:59:13 ( CDT ) | | >Just trying to support you ... obviously . I reached out | to Jared and sort it out . 2022-05-12 20:00:53 ( CDT ) | | >* moved 2022-05-12 20:01:54 ( CDT ) | | >Yes , I had to ask him to stop . 2022-05-12 20:06:45 ( | CDT ) | | >Liked " Just trying to support you ... obviously . I | reached out to Jared and sort it out . " 2022-05-12 | 22:49:00 ( CDT ) | | >Cleaned it up with Jared 2022-05-12 22:49:12 ( CDT ) | | >Liked " Cleaned it up with Jared " 2022-05-12 22:49:58 ( | CDT ) | | >I get where he is coming from .... Candidly , This deal | has just captures the worlds imagination in an | unimaginable way . It's bonkers .... 2022-05-12 22:51:42 | ( CDT ) | | >And you know I'm ride or die brother - I'd jump on a | grande for you 2022-05-12 22:51:49 ( CDT ) | | >Loved " And you know I'm ride or die brother - I'd jump | on a grande for you " | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | Part of the depositions for the court case. Dan luu put | them on his site. | blamazon wrote: | >This is a scan/OCR of Exhibits H and J from the Twitter | v. Musk case, with some of the conversations de- | interleaved and of course converted from a fuzzy scan to | text to make for easier reading. | | https://danluu.com/elon-twitter-texts/#47 | toomuchtodo wrote: | Twitter employees: "we're going to vote to unionize" | | When you have nothing left to lose, why wouldn't you? It | brings the federal government in to provide support, on their | dime no less. Worst case is everyone leaves, the NLRB finds | against Musk, and he has to give folks their jobs back while | Twitter is burning. | | "The strongest steel is forged in the fires of a dumpster." | luckylion wrote: | "Nothing left to lose", except that $160k-500k yearly | compensation. | bart_spoon wrote: | Increased work hours, forced relocation to one of the | most expensive metros in the the world, and threat of | imminent job loss probably make that yearly compensation | less attractive in reality than it is on paper. | luckylion wrote: | Oh, probably. But it's a great argument not to unionize, | especially so because the employees are supposedly very | valuable and will not have trouble finding a new company | that will pay similar salaries and give them permanent | WFH. Unions are for the masses, not the elite. | fnordpiglet wrote: | When end of year hiring freezes and recession jitter | layoffs end I don't think well paid twitter employees | will have much trouble finding better employment | elsewhere. | mrits wrote: | In a couple years society has gone from working 40 hours | a week at the office to being forced to as "nothing else | to lose" | pasquinelli wrote: | in that case it's good remote work won't be happening | there. it's hard for remote workers to get organized. | fragmede wrote: | Not especially. "Hey what's your personal email/phone | number?" "Here's an invite to this private slack we've | been meeting up on." | pasquinelli wrote: | there's really something to be said for a group of people | literally working together. for instance, before you get | the ball rolling you'd like to have an idea of the level | of interest and commitment of your fellow workers. your | private slack will be filled with people that want a | union, this gives you no idea who may not want a union at | all, or, more importantly, who's on the fence. you can't | make a pitch to those people on your slack, because they | have better things to do with their time. but if you're | all at work anyway... | fnordpiglet wrote: | If employees managed to organize productivity and profits | at every enterprise on earth remotely, you're probably | not right they can't organize a union unless it's in | person. I'll point out productivity declines with RTO and | everyone acted like they didn't understand why | productivity declined. | | All I can say is I'm excited to hire the best employees | at twitter and let them work the way they work best. | pasquinelli wrote: | before they can organize as workers, they need to have | class consciousness, and actually working with other | workers helps. | [deleted] | throwuwu wrote: | Pipe dreams | orangepurple wrote: | Steel is forged in a fire regardless. Forged steel hardens | with cycles of annealing and stress. Which is exactly what | layoffs are. Cycles of heating and cooling. Lol | memish wrote: | Why do that as opposed to leaving and competing against him | if they have a better idea of how to operate a social media | site? His naysayers are convinced he's going to destroy it | anyway. | fnordpiglet wrote: | As an engineer I may not know how to run a better social | media product. My skill in developing software doesn't | necessarily translate into successful business operator. | But I sort of agree, if you're top talent at twitter it's | time to leave. | toomuchtodo wrote: | This is not how you win in a rigged system against a | billionaire who weaponizes his wealth against everyone | who does not take a knee and flouts the law whenever they | see fit. | | The path to success is voting for decency over power, so | I suppose we'll agree to disagree. To unionize costs | Twitter folks only their time and effort. The tools | exists, just have to use them. This is what a hacker | would do, isn't it? Use the tools available instead of | being goaded into some other mechanisms out of "pride"? | | https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the- | law/em... | | https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct- | elections | memish wrote: | Twitter employees are in the top 1%. They're not poor | factory workers. They also own the means of production; a | computer. | GolDDranks wrote: | A computer is not the means of production for Twitter. | Twitter, the company, is in the business of producing ad | impressions for the advertiser. They use Twitter, the | platform to do that, so that's their means of production. | A computer is just the tool to build and maintain the | platform, not directly to produce value. (If Twitter were | an IT consulting company, the computer would be a means | of production for them.) | int_19h wrote: | They're still workers. Unions aren't "for the poor". | heavyset_go wrote: | Twitter employees certainly don't own Twitter's capital. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Tech workers are the new factory workers. I'm unsure why | you're advocating so hard for tolerating abuse from the | extremely wealthy (cult of personality?), but that is | your right. Abuse need not be tolerated when labor | regulations provide you leverage against it. | ericd wrote: | Let's not be hyperbolic, it's a ridiculously cushy job by | comparison. | eropple wrote: | That it's cushy (it is!) does not change that it's not a | capital position. | | Your average tech worker makes company owners orders of | magnitude more than your average factory worker, and are | paid what they are because they can demand it. Business | owners would pay less if they could. Why shouldn't tech | workers, like any other worker, try to maximize their own | lot in turn? | ilyt wrote: | Yeah, nah. Most of them can easily find work elsewhere | for as good compensation. | heavyset_go wrote: | So could factory workers. | nunez wrote: | Let's compare the daily grind of a factory worker to that | of an engineer at a place like Twitter (tech worker is | really broad): | | FACTORY WORKER: | | - Gets up early, leaves late | | - Performs work that is rote down to a T | | - Works extremely hard, physically | | - On their feet for large parts of the day | | - Must join (and pay to be in) a union for benefits and | such | | - Extremely fungable | | - Paid at or around the US median | | TWITTER ENGINEER | | - Gets up early...if they want to. Gets out late...if | they want to. | | - Or they just pull up before your team's standup and | peace out at 3pm | | - Work on extremely creative tasks b/c software is | creative; so much so that some have really cool blogs | where they talk about the 0.01% elite engineering shit | they do | | - Work is extremely demanding mentally while you sit in | >$1000 chairs and type on >$1000 standing desks | | - Need the standing desk and occasional walk to force | themselves to be mobile | | - No union, but amazing benefits (see laid off Tweeps | getting three months of pay) | | - Generally not very fungable | | - Paid several times above the US median, and that's | before we consider their equity | | TL;DR: Come on, dude. | jesuscript wrote: | It's not as simple as that. Megalomania is a thing. He wants to | show he can spend that kind of money and destroy something how | he chooses. | sangnoir wrote: | > He wants to show he can spend that kind of money[...] | | Reminder: he expressly _did not want_ to spend that kind of | money but was forced to after facing a near-certain defeat in | Delaware court. I wasn 't expecting the events to be | mythologized beyond recognition within weeks. | [deleted] | mochomocha wrote: | If you're going to correct someone, you'd likely want to do | it right: he _did not want_ to spend that kind of money | _after having agreed to do so in a legally binding way_. | Mark of a business genius who is definitely not impulsive | and driven by ego. | fortuna86 wrote: | You didn't listen to him during the advertisers call | yesterday. He's freaked out that his 44b investment could go | to 0. | atmosx wrote: | Financially doesn't make sense. It's the most stupid thing | ever. If the US gov pulls the rag he might go broke really | quick. | martin8412 wrote: | ok123456 wrote: | What is his stack like? | jrochkind1 wrote: | While he has so much money that he can lose billions and I | don't see it actually affecting his quality of life... it | will presumably affect his ability to raise billions like | this again in investments or loans, which seems to be | something he really enjoys doing and his ability to do it | seems to be part his self-regard. It doesn't seem likely to | me that he intends to destroy twitter and lose all the | invested money. | | However... he does seem to be really really bad at running a | company, which does seem a bit inexplicable when he's run | several companies succesfully before. | andrew_ wrote: | These kinds of faux insights are shallow. | jesuscript wrote: | Everything he is doing is done in quiet corporate ways all | the time. Why is his way so celebrity like? It's almost | like he wants people to know. You can't see that? | | No one walks in with a fucking a sink to a company dude | lol. | marcusverus wrote: | > Why is his way so celebrity like? | | Quiet, corporate ways don't result in free advertising. | maharajatever wrote: | And also don't lose you a significant proportion of your | advertising revenue... | ComputerGuru wrote: | That's just his personality. | maharajatever wrote: | Personality, lol!... | willis936 wrote: | Yes, he is a narcissist and has the power to make people | look at him instead of just trying. | margalabargala wrote: | Could you elaborate on what conclusion we're meant to | draw by this being Musk's personality? It doesn't inform | whether what is doing is good or bad, megalomaniacal or | not, etc. The list of people doing things that are "just | their personality" include Gandhi, Donald Trump, Vladimir | Putin, Mother Teresa, MLK, and Hitler. | Zigurd wrote: | It is may be glib, but Musk decided to close a $10s of | billions deal he wanted to avoid a week before litigation | because he thought he could flip Twitter for less loss than | a settlement and whatever damage discovery and depositions | would do. | | That level of thoughtlessness is how you immediately find | your equity investment under water. "WTF is wrong with you, | Elon?" is a reasonable question to be asking, but evidently | nobody does. | CamperBob2 wrote: | As is your response. Do you have a better explanation for | his behavior with respect to his involvement with Twitter? | jesuscript wrote: | Yep. It takes one to know one. That's how I know. | seydor wrote: | But it s not a neutral decision. It is likely you are left with | the employees who are willing to tolerate a worse lifestyle for | the paycheck, and you are letting go employees who are smart | enough to prefer to have more control of their lives. | chinabot wrote: | I guess expecting an employee to do actual work could ruin | some ones lifestyle. I've been in a couple of companies now | where only a few people "work" and the rest do "other stuff", | I would have been happy in both those for someone like Musk | to take over. | | Musk is his own worst enemy and can be a douche a lot of the | time but he doesn't deserve this toxic personal shit for | trying to sort out the mess. Also as I remember once he saw | past the facade of twitter he tried to back out and it was | the twitter board of management that insisted he buy. | lmm wrote: | > I guess expecting an employee to do actual work could | ruin some ones lifestyle. I've been in a couple of | companies now where only a few people "work" and the rest | do "other stuff", I would have been happy in both those for | someone like Musk to take over. | | I can sympathise with this, but that's if anything | anticorrelated with coming into the office - the people who | work the least are those who make the most effort at being | seen. | batter wrote: | Just in case you have missed how lay-off is happening | https://www.tiktok.com/@mattxshaver/video/716219248461172254... | :) | vhiremath4 wrote: | I didn't realize the guy in this video is joking... For a | second I thought this was real. Wow. | Invictus0 wrote: | The video was satire | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | Satire is not believable; this was. So whatever it was it | was poorly done. Unless you were already familiar with the | dude you would have no idea he was joking. He even put THIS | IS REAL in front of the image. | fragmede wrote: | To be clear, this video isn't real and Matt Shaver is "Just a | dude who loves YouTube trying to make people laugh". | https://www.youtube.com/c/mattshaver | gavrif wrote: | https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/nov/08/instagram-. | .. | jmyeet wrote: | If you view every employee as interchangeable this makes sense. | Clearly that isn't the case. | | What ends up happening when you do things like this (ie to | accelerate natural attrition) is the best people leave first. | So you haven't really solved the problem. You may have made it | worse. | blindseer wrote: | You are giving Musk too much credit. He's a classic control | freak and micromanager, and right now he's trying to run | twitter like 6 person start-up that running low on funds. | danans wrote: | > Wouldn't it make the most sense to announce those decisions | before making layoffs? Let people self select whether they want | to stay and work for you and then make your layoffs after to | ensure all teams are properly staffed. | | He's got huge debt and declining revenue - both of his own | making - so he doesn't have time for employees to self-select | based on minor incentives. He has to strip down the car fast | while somehow also keeping it road-worthy and operational. He | also wants to recreate the place per his own vision, so it | makes sense to get rid of as many people carrying the previous | culture as you can and then start hiring as necessary with the | kind of people you want. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Seems like he's trying to speed run employees jumping ship - | I'm surprised he didn't try these tactics for a month or two | before firing a bunch of people and paying severance. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | He actually did, | | June 16, 2022: | | Elon Musk plans to use remote work as a reward at Twitter-- | but only for 'exceptional' employees | | https://fortune.com/2022/06/16/elon-musk-twitter-remote- | work... | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | That's not trying the tactic though, that's just saying | an idea he has, which with Elon is the sort of thing that | happens every 2 minutes and I doubt anyone takes | seriously. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > He has to strip down the car fast | | You know what we call a vehicle thats undergoing Rapid | Disassembly? An Explosion. | pasttense01 wrote: | And how do you find "the people carrying the previous | culture" and other deadwood? | | You have to observe them over several weeks/months. But Elon | didn't do this at all. He is about as likely to have fired | the best people as the worst people. | behringer wrote: | The worst people will never leave on their own. | aantix wrote: | Unless they're required to work 12 hour days, 7 days a | week? | lll-o-lll wrote: | Even then. If you are a low performer, in this market, | that's managed to survive to this point? It's head down, | cover your backside, sacrifice the person next to you if | you must, and hope you make it through... People in | survival mode will do anything to keep on surviving. | vidarh wrote: | In crumbling organisations, being willing to just | stubbornly stay can even give underperforming people a | shot at promotions they'd be unlikely ever get otherwise | by virtue of becoming the most senior persons in teams | with gaps above them. | ilyt wrote: | The only people he needs to not fire are ones running | infrastructure. Rest can be replaced easily. | janoc wrote: | Except he has fired exactly those. Like the entire | information security team. Giving Twitter your payment/CC | info now is likely a very bad idea ... | lovich wrote: | Making a bunch of unpopular changes and waiting a month still | seems more prudent. The people most likely carrying that | culture are gonna be the ones most inclined to leave over | changes, and if they are leaving on their own that would | decrease costs associated with benefits or the increase to | the unemployment tax that comes with layoffs | heavyset_go wrote: | Changes to terms of employment make employees who quit | because of them eligible to collect unemployment. It's one | of the few reasons workers are eligible for unemployment | when they voluntarily quit. | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote: | > He's got huge debt and declining revenue - both of his own | making | | While I think he has done a huge amount to scare away | advertisers, I expect the ad industry as a whole is going to | be seeing reduced profits for the next couple of years. | slg wrote: | >He has to strip down the car fast while somehow also keeping | it road-worthy and operational. | | But this is my point. By doing it in this order he is risking | continued operation of Twitter because he no longer can | ensure Twitter can either properly staff business critical | teams or retain critical institutional knowledge for how to | run the company. He is jeopardizing the continued viability | of a $44b investment to save maybe a few hundred million max. | danans wrote: | > He is jeopardizing the continued viability of a $44b | investment to save maybe a few hundred million max. | | Both he and the market know that he paid too much for | Twitter. It isn't worth $44B, but he needs to make it lean | enough to start throwing off enough cash to pay back the | loans he took to buy it at that price. | | Since it is very hard to increase revenue (especially when | he is allowing more advertiser-repellent content), he is | trying to dramatically cut costs while trying to increase | non advertising revenue. | | He can't go back to the banks and the Saudi sovereign | wealth fund and explain to them that he needs a deferment | so he can invest in more efficient SRE and content | moderation. He has to sleep in the bed he made, which means | show his creditors the money. | janoc wrote: | >then start hiring as necessary with the kind of people you | want. | | That assumes that people will still want to work for Twitter | after all of this. | | Given that there is no shortage of jobs for engineers even | after massive layoffs at Facebook/Meta and Twitter, many | people are going to think twice about signing up to work for | a company and owner that have a reputation for treating | people as disposable trash. | | Employees are the company's most valuable capital - so if you | unceremoniously boot out the most experienced staff that was | keeping the ship afloat and expect to replace them with cheap | new hires while maintaining productivity, security and | revenue (which weren't great at Twitter to begin with), you | would have to be delusional. | | Some layoffs were likely justified but thanks to the | hamfisted way they were done I am sorry for the recruiters | that will have to look for new staff now. They will have a | very unenviable job. | spamizbad wrote: | > He also wants to recreate the place per his own vision, so | it makes sense to get rid of as many people carrying the | previous culture as you can and then start hiring as | necessary with the kind of people you want. | | Twitter isn't going to have the same "pull" as organizations | like Tesla or SpaceX where you can attract top-shelf talent | by virtue of working on some of the most interesting | problems. Twitter is... Twitter. It's Adtech + SaaS. I'm not | saying this is boring or easy - it's not, it has tons of | challenging problems... but how is Twitter under Musk more | appealing to engineers than Twitter under any of its previous | CEOs? | abxytg wrote: | Or -- he's stupid. | danans wrote: | I think the stupidity was in the non-contingent offer to | purchase it. Now he's trying to pay for that stupidity. | Maybe he's doing that stupidly too, but only time will | tell. | bilbo0s wrote: | This. | | He let emotion laden political nonsense lead him into | making an extraordinarily bad deal. OK. Fine. Not what | prudent businessmen would have done, but now he's where | he is with the Twitter deal. | | So at this point it's all about leading from where you | are, and sometimes where you are is in a place where | there are zero good options. Every option is terrible, | and probably won't work to extricate you from your | situation. | | But here's the thing, you have to take one of the options | because you cannot stay where you are. The one thing you | know is that where you are leads to certain death. Go | left. Go right. But you can't stay here. That's the | situation Elon is in. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | I'm not convinced Elon has actually considered all his | options. He didn't have the company for any time at all | before he start trying desperately to massively change | things. Personally I feel like taking a minute or two to | figure out the state of things before slashing and | burning would be helpful for choosing the right path | instead of making moves that get reverted the same day | they are implemented. | gw98 wrote: | I suspect this is the real problem. | | Stupid people with money can look like they are clever | because the layer of people immediately underneath them | actually wields the clue stick. | | Stupid people with no money look stupid because they can't | afford the layer of clever people underneath them. | | Clever people are either abstracting the liability via | stupid person in the layer above them or don't need that | kind of shit in their lives and are just getting on with | designing and building products with the other clever | people around them. | | Edit: I'd just like to note that I am recognising the work | that Tesla and SpaceX engineers and staff do which the PR | baboon up the top somehow gets credit for every time. | joshstrange wrote: | Yep, it's a whole class of equating X thing with being | "virtuous" (or similar). Your height, your sex, your | weight, your hairline, your income/savings, etc. It's | uncomfortable to talk about or admit but people regularly | take controllable (or uncontrollable) traits and assign | value to them even though it doesn't have any actual | bearing. | | "Oh that billionaire did something that seems odd/crazy | to me? Well he must know something I don't else how would | be be a billionaire!" - Yeah, that's not how things work. | What's the line? "Past performance is not indicative of | future results", paraphrasing it: "Past advantages are | not indicative of future results". Very, very few "self- | made million/billionaires" are anything of the sort. I'm | not saying their lives have never been hard or that they | have never worked hard at something but I think you'd | find that, at scale, most people would succeed if put | into that position (from birth, which is why this is | near-impossible to prove). | gw98 wrote: | Indeed. My father said it this way, rather well: there | are many more failed assholes than successful assholes. | Do not attribute success to being an asshole. | | Incidentally he was a failed asshole. All his staff | deserted him and watched his business burn to the ground. | Perhaps ironically a big fan of Musk too. | fallingknife wrote: | > most people would succeed if put into that position | (from birth, which is why this is near-impossible to | prove). | | It's actually very easy to disprove. There are 22 million | millionaires in the US. There are 720 billionaires. That | gives you a 0.003% chance of going from millionaire tier | to billionaire. | jackmott42 wrote: | It would be a remarkable bit of luck that Elon stumbled | into both Tesla and SpaceX, took on the role of lead | rocket designer at spaceX, built both companies into | unlikely leaders in their industry with powerful people | trying to crush them all the way, while being a total | idiot. | | A similar but more charitable theory is that Elon is very | good at leading a company to build actual hardware that | has to solve hard physics problems. At twitter the | primary challenge is managing people, and he is autistic | and has no idea how to do this. He has no idea how normal | people experience or use twitter, no idea how his tweets | are felt by people, no idea how his employees feel about | him etc. | | all of these are things that don't matter when building a | rocket or a car, while understanding people and politics | is the ONLY thing that matters at twitter. | poszlem wrote: | What's stupid is people thinking that someone who | successfully rules over some of the most influential | companies in the world is stupid. Reminds me of all those | people who claim that Trump or Putin[1] are "stupid" where | in reality they just mean "I don't like them". | | [1] You can be a murderous dictator and not stupid, I would | actually wager a guess that those people tend to actually | be cleverer than average. Some applies to blood-thirsty | CEOs. | wittycardio wrote: | Success is not really a measure of intelligence. I | actually think Elon is likely quite intelligent but a lot | of success is determined by luck, ambition and attitude | rather than pure intelligence. I definitely do not think | Donald Trump is very intelligent, but he has undoubtedly | been very successful. | willcipriano wrote: | Been saying this forever. It's never wise to call your | enemies stupid, it makes it considerably more | embarrassing when you lose to a idiot. | | All of my enemies are 8 foot tall, einsteinian, gigachad | supermen. | jimjimjim wrote: | No, it is good to call them stupid. If you call them evil | or Machiavellian they actually like it and take pride in | it. To them not being those things is WEAK. | | So you have to actually see where they have a fragile | ego, E.g stupid, bad with money, poor, or they have no | class. | wombat-man wrote: | I don't particularly dislike musk, but I'm happy to be on | the sidelines of twitter. I like the site and hope he | doesn't muck it up. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > Reminds me of all those people who claim that Trump or | Putin are "stupid" | | So Russia has all the natural resources you could wish | for, economy the size of Italy's, economic crisis, most | corruption in human history, and is currently loosing a | war fighting a smaller country with weapons made 60 years | ago. | | Please remind me where is the genius I am missing? | LAC-Tech wrote: | People are talking about whether Putin the individual is | stupid, and your argument for that is the situation of | the entirety of Russia. | | The comparison doesn't really make sense. | danny_taco wrote: | Elon or Putin are not stupid, far from it, but that | doesn't mean they can't make stupid decisions, and not | only make them but double down on them. | | For example, look at Putin and the state of Russia and | their invasion of Ukraine. I think everyone would agree | it has been one of the biggest military and geopolitical | blunders ever. As far as Elons acquisition of Twitter, | time will tell if it was 'stupid' decision or not. | randomsearch wrote: | Was it really stupid or was he outsmarted by his | opponents? Seems to me the White House have outplayed | him. | lumost wrote: | There is a surprising amount of luck and happenstance in | people reaching their current positions. Even great | discoveries made by smart people often originate because | someone was in the right place at the right time. Most | societies rewards these events, for both the individual | and through inheritance their children. | | Musk may be cleverer than average, but he's also come to | own twitter by virtue of being successful at building | paypal, followed by being able to successfully deploy | capital at impactful problems at SpaceX and Tesla. While | impressive achievements, these achievements do not imply | that Musk will be successful at Twitter. He's known for | demanding people to do their best and hardest work by | pointing them at seamingly impossible but impactful | problems. | | Will rescuing a failing social network motivate people in | the same way? I don't think so. I'd probably be willing | to work 60+ hours a week for average pay to solve global | warming (TSLA) or colonize Mars (SpaceX) - I wouldn't be | willing to make that sacrifice for Twitter. | nescioquid wrote: | There _is_ a surprising amount of luck involved. More | than you suspected. | | > being successful at building paypal | | Musk never worked for a company called PayPal. The | predecessor companies that merged to become PayPal forced | Musk out around the time of the merger. Later the company | changed its name to PayPal and when it went public, Musk | had a big payday. | tomcam wrote: | > While impressive achievements, these achievements do | not imply that Musk will be successful at Twitter. | | Well, they imply it a lot more than a person with success | in zero businesses up to this point | jonathankoren wrote: | You could also look at this person and wonder how much | acumen he actually has if he's the CEO of three billion | dollar companies simultaneously and still has time smoke | blunts on podcasts. Usually CEO is a full-time job, but | for him? | | Maybe he's just never sleeps. Maybe the real work is | being done by others ( _cough_ Shotwell _cough_ ) and | he's just takes the credit ( _cough_ Tesla founder | _cough_ ). Or maybe, just maybe, CEO just isn't that hard | of a job? | maharajatever wrote: | Ancapistani wrote: | Agreed. | | I wouldn't want to work for Twitter w/o remote work, but | I don't think he's _stupid_. | [deleted] | uxcolumbo wrote: | Putin's and Musk's massive ego and narcissism will be | their downfall. | | By invading Ukraine, Putin has achieved the exact | opposite he wanted to achieve. The West is now more | united than ever and more Russia border countries are | going to join NATO. On top of that he has destroyed | Russian economy. Tell me how that's not stupid? | | I don't even have to go into Musk's actions. He massively | overpaid for Twitter and to service the loan he has to | pay $1bn a year. Even if he'd cut all his staff and | millions would subscribe to Twitter blue - that wouldn't | be enough to service the loan. Plus tons of advertisers | left the platform because he's a loose canon spewing | conspiracy theories. How is this not stupid? | LAC-Tech wrote: | _By invading Ukraine, Putin has achieved the exact | opposite he wanted to achieve. The West is now more | united than ever and more Russia border countries are | going to join NATO. On top of that he has destroyed | Russian economy. Tell me how that 's not stupid?_ | | But he likely saw the alternative as Ukraine in NATO, | colour revolutions spreading to Russia, and ending up | like Gadaffi (whose gruesome death he was said to have | watched on video over and over again). | | Probably he regrets not doing it sooner, when the | Ukranian military was in much worse shape. | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | The smartest man in the world can still make mistakes. | epgui wrote: | Yes, but does that mean the smartest man in the world is | stupid? | RavingGoat wrote: | He comes across as average to slightly above average IQ | so he's not stupid. Definitely not a genius though. Just | a really, really great self promoter who likes to take | credit for other people's work. | whydoyoucare wrote: | US typically uses pretty strong adjectives. Like my kid | keeps on "hating" everything, and there are no shades of | gray. Maybe that's how you are using "stupid"? Haha. | nitwit005 wrote: | Hiring is expensive, and people can take months to get up to | speed on a new role. If too many people quit, he'll have | simply wasted money and time. | | I've joined two teams where everyone previously on the team | quit (plenty of openings). There was indeed a benefit to | fresh eyes on things, but those projects took months to get | back up to speed. | danans wrote: | > Hiring is expensive, and people can take months to get up | to speed on a new role. If too many people quit, he'll have | simply wasted money and time. | | Yes, he's probably screwed either way. Sucks that others | are getting screwed as a result of his choices. | gnaritas99 wrote: | fred_is_fred wrote: | A long standing maneuver that companies have is the "your job | is now in Houston" when you live in New York. This has an | interesting side effect of basically removing anyone from your | company who is old enough to have a family with kids in school, | wife working etc. Basically it "legally" removes the older more | expensive employees. RTO will remove people also like you said, | but I wonder what demographic? | gamblor956 wrote: | Moving a person's office of employment outside of what would | be considered a reasonable commute is treated as a | constructive dismissal in the U.S. It is generally legal, | because is treated as a normal termination by the employer | (basically: the employee's "current" job is being terminated | and the employer is offering them a "new" job in a new | location). | | This means, among other things, that the employee qualifies | for unemployment, the employer's unemployment insurance | account will get dinged, etc. | microtherion wrote: | My understanding (I am not a lawyer, talk to one if you | think you're subject to a situation like this) is that | constructive dismissal is NOT legal, and that the whole | reason this is a legal term is that this is one of the | categories of job separation that falls under "wrongful | termination" in most states, even those that are otherwise | under an "at-will" employment regime. | | In the particular case of Twitter, they announced in 2020 | that they would allow "permanent" remote work, and | reiterated this policy at least as late as March of this | year [1]. If I'm correctly informed, the change in this | policy was announced in an e-mail that was sent out on | Wednesday, and was to be effective on Thursday, the | following day. | | It would seem to me that this is about as straightforward | and well-documented a constructive dismissal fact pattern | as you could conceive. | | [1] https://thinkremote.com/twitter-to-open-offices-this- | month-b... | gamblor956 wrote: | I am a lawyer... | | Constructive dismissal as a legal concept is relevant for | purposes of determining whether the employee voluntary | separated (i.e., quit) or was terminated by the company. | This then determines the legal rights/obligations of the | parties, including for example eligibility for | unemployment, severance, etc. | | Constructive dismissal is treated as a termination, | meaning involuntary on the employee's behalf. Whether the | constructive dismissal is legal depends on whether a | termination in the same circumstances would be legal. | Terminations are generally legal, so constructive | dismissals are generally legal... | | I agree that in this case the Twitter WFO policy is | constructive dismissal. And elsewhere I have said this | would fall under the WARN Act because it's clearly part | of the mass terminations already announced early this | week. | geoelectric wrote: | Here's CA's stance, and consider that CA is probably | going to be the most protective state in the US when it | comes to these things. Other states with decent labor | protection mostly copied our laws. | | https://workplacerightslaw.com/library/retaliation/constr | uct... | | My take: | | The TL;DR is that it's just equivalent to getting fired. | If you can prove you got shuffled out the door via | constructive dismissal for reasons it's illegal to fire | people for, then it's illegal. If at-will would've | applied anyway, it's just a jerk move. Mostly it means | you still get unemployment and _can_ still sue for | wrongful termination, even though you technically | resigned. | | What I suspect _might_ be more of an issue, at least in | CA, is that our at-will law has a "good faith" clause | that basically implies you can't fire someone for a | reason that would broadly be considered unethical in the | context of an employer-employee business relationship. | The classic example is canning someone just before they | get their commissions purely to save yourself of the cost | of paying them. My guess is that's one reason why | Facebook, for example, is giving all their employees the | mid-November vest even if they got fired first. | | Constructively dismissing someone out the door probably | takes away a lot of argument that you were acting in good | faith. | | If they promised these people that they could work remote | and they invested in property then get forced to move, I | actually wonder if it could open up the company to | promissory estoppel (i.e., I had a financial loss based | on a reasonable promise you broke, and now I want to | recover). | | The times I've heard about that cause in the past were | exactly for situations where you moved for a job, then | the job was rescinded. At the very least, that angle | probably wouldn't look great in court during a wrongful | termination suit. | | (IANAL either, but since I work in CA I try to stay | reasonably informed of the laws that affect me.) | georgyo wrote: | I worked at a place that did this in 2009. | | The problem with this method is that many people DID relocate | to keep their jobs. And then were layed off two months later. | | Imagine uplifting your life for your job, and then being told | you need to find a new job anyway. | hsuduebc2 wrote: | I'm afraid that you shouldn't subduct to this tyranny in | first place. | slg wrote: | Well yes, the actual best approach for the wellbeing of | employee is to combine these two moves. Give employees the | choice between taking a voluntary severance package or coming | back to the office. Make it known that a round of layoffs is | possible depending on the number of people who take the | severance. That way no one is misled into moving and the | company doesn't have to be as concerned with the distribution | of people who refuse to work in the office. | | And let's be honest, Musk isn't doing it in this order for | the wellbeing of Twitter's employees. | whacim wrote: | I wonder if there is some sort of tax strategy Musk can | implement if Twitter goes under? Might be more valuable dead | than alive to him. | Ptchd wrote: | Maybe in reality, he didn't layoff as many people as he wanted | to? The rest will fire themselves... | nonrandomstring wrote: | I made a half-joke here on HN a few months ago that Musk was | buying Twitter just to destroy it for the lols. | | Maybe everyone's wasting their time with rational economic | analysis, trying to figure out a pretty simple guy with an | obscene pile of fuck-you money and an axe to grind. | ericmcer wrote: | Everyone is looking at it too short term. Twitter isn't going | to disappear and he has shown a willingness to ride through | rough economic times to reach his vision. | | Social Media is how people interact with the world now, most | info we receive is filtered through it in some form. In the | last 10 or so years the idea that these platforms need tight | moderation to control what and who is speaking on them has | become ubiquitous. I think his main gamble is that the future | of social media does not involve automated moderation and | tight content restrictions, but a more open platform and he | is gonna use twitter to play that bet out. It isn't a | horrible bet. | rob74 wrote: | > _Twitter isn't going to disappear_ | | Isn't it? Ok, maybe Musk has a magic wand that he can use | to make it profitable (which it has been for only two out | of the last 12 years), or is willing to subsidize it | indefinitely out of his deep pockets... but I wouldn't bet | on it. | heavyset_go wrote: | Is that why Twitter is suspending accounts that tweet | things that hurt Musk's feelings? That sounds like tight | content restrictions to me. | norwalkbear wrote: | Hurt his feelings or impersonating him. I've seen him | replying to people insulting him and not suspending them. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Twitter isn't going to disappear | | You seem more confident than Musk is reported to have been | in today's sudden all-hands meeting; what do you know that | Musk doesn't? | notacop31337 wrote: | I made this comment to a friend recently that I don't think | enough people are considering that he might actually be mad | enough to have spent $44B to destroy a toxic business. | chipotle_coyote wrote: | The hole in that theory is that by all appearances, Elon | Musk _really, really likes using Twitter._ I don 't think | he wants to kill it. I think the madness is two-fold: | | (1) he approached this with a "pfft, I could run that | business better than the bozos in charge" attitude -- it's | not as if Twitter has been known for great management up to | this point, right? -- but never actually came up with a | plan beyond "not what they've been doing." After he | initially made the offer, he spent all the time he should | have been formulating business plans trying to get out of | the deal instead. Then it got forced on him, and he's had | to scramble. | | (2) Elon has millions of people who treat him as a | combination of Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, and Tony Stark, | and bluntly, I think he's started believing his own press | to the point where he just figures, "Why, yes, I _am_ a | super genius who can do anything, and anyone who | contradicts me is clearly not worth listening to. " | | I would be very surprised if Twitter recovers from what | Elon Musk, Super Genius is doing to it; the question is | whether _Elon Musk_ is going to recover from it. The best | case is that this will be his Steve Jobs Exiled From Apple | moment; the worst case is that he becomes Howard Hughes. | fortuna86 wrote: | That's a very funny spin to still make Elon look good in | all this. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | > destroy a toxic business | | Twitter is more toxic under musk.. | bilvar wrote: | In the entire two days he's at the helm you made that | conclusion? Seriously I'm indifferent about Musk, but | that's absurd. | ericd wrote: | Spending $44B to prevent the endless terrible hot takes of | the Twitterati from polarizing the world to the point where | the rest of his stash becomes worthless. I like it. | fortuna86 wrote: | Not for the lols, I dont care how rich you are losing 44b | hurts. But he is clearly out of his depth. | drcross wrote: | Watch Musks interview with Ron Baron instead of reading | second hand quality hack articles if you want to understand | the scale of his plans for twitter. | barbazoo wrote: | Is it true that $13bn came in the form of loans and that | those loans are secured by Twitter, not Musk or any entity | he'd personally be responsible for? | | If so, how does that work? | mahkeiro wrote: | Just google LBO, plenty of site explain that better than me | bart_spoon wrote: | I think his ego is too massive for that. The man bristles at | the slightest criticism. Destroying Twitter, even | intentionally, will provide enough fodder to his critics that | I don't think he'd be able to actually suck it up and follow | through. | dnissley wrote: | What's the axe he's grinding? | adamredwoods wrote: | Marissa Mayers and Yahoo in 2013: | | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/25/yahoo-chi... | | https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/marissa-mayer-defends-her-... | sdze wrote: | Interesting aspect. So this could mean the beginning of the end | of Twattr. | bcoughlan wrote: | > New boss wants subscriptions to account for half of revenue | | Bahaha, be careful what you wish for! | jurassic wrote: | Many technical parts of the company had 80% layoffs last week. | The people who quit or quiet quit over this senseless RTO mandate | will push the company into an unrecoverable brain drain, if | they're not already there. | [deleted] | jahlove wrote: | Hacker News top search result for "Twitter", from two years ago: | | Twitter Will Allow Employees to Work at Home Forever | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 | | Forever is a long time... | zeroonetwothree wrote: | At the time people thought the pandemic would be forever... | kridsdale2 wrote: | Depending on your definitions, it is. | bigbillheck wrote: | It's still killing hundreds of people every day. | [deleted] | prottog wrote: | A hundred and twenty people die every minute in the US. How | far will you go to ensure that doesn't happen? How many | civil liberties will you suspend, and how many cherished | norms of life will you cast aside in your goal? | [deleted] | [deleted] | TimTheTinker wrote: | Reminder that "forever", "unlimited", "never", "always", and | other superlatives, when spoken by companies, only mean the | limit is not yet known, not yet coherently defined, or that the | definition is provided elsewhere. | wilg wrote: | This is true even when not spoken by companies. | phaedrus wrote: | Illustrates a case where even workers who have a good | relationship with their management might benefit from a union. | Management can change; then who is left to hold the new | management to former promises? | ben7799 wrote: | It feels like remote work is a distraction here.. it's more like | Musk realizes he bought a company that was in a lot more trouble | than anyone out in the public can understand and he's scrambling | for anything. | | Everyone is all worried about what this means for remote work at | other companies when it might not mean anything at all since the | other companies don't have the same circumstances as Twitter. | | Also we're all defensive cause we're attached to remote work. | bink wrote: | > it's more like Musk realizes he bought a company that was in | a lot more trouble than anyone out in the public can understand | | Or he bought a company and by doing so placed it in a lot more | trouble than it was previously. | ben7799 wrote: | This seems to be the popular view, everyone has been | irrationally cheering for Twitter for 10+ years now but it | ignores twitter's long term financial results as we head into | an economic contraction. | | That's the whole thing.. Musk made his stupid public decision | to buy Twitter before the economic winds shifted. By the time | it closed things had changed. He harmed Twitter by the way | the whole thing dragged out, but Twitter was damaged goods | anyway and has become more damaged by the economic winds in | addition to Musk. | | Twitter was betting the farm that investors would continue to | ignore the bottom line and money would continue to be easy | and valuations would continue to be decoupled from results. | cragfar wrote: | It's weird how people are trying to divine his actions. He's | been against remote work at every point. He tried to keep the | Tesla offices open when the Covid Lockdowns were starting. | bmitc wrote: | I think he's been pretty against anything that doesn't treat | workers as automatons. | ClassyJacket wrote: | This is a great way to drive away your best talent and ensure | those who stay are more tired, frustrated, and stressed. | SillyUsername wrote: | It also leads to more mistakes and cutting corners (usually | hidden), so in the long term as they accumulate this will bite | him in the ass when a particularly bad one gets out in the wild | unnoticed. And I thought this guy had a high IQ, clearly he's | not that bright after all. | tjpnz wrote: | Having a high IQ doesn't make you immune from cockups. | SillyUsername wrote: | No I guess not. His rants on social media have cost him in | the past. I believe he may have psychopathic tendencies | because he appears to be attempting to project his own work | ethic (long hours etc) onto staff but cannot emphasize with | them, or understand they aren't him/have his | circumstances/have his ability. His goals are great and | have certainly pushed our tech boundaries into near science | fiction, but he really doesn't have the social and people | skills, which is ironic given he's bought Twitter. If there | was one thing I could tell him, it's that he should engage | his brain before his mouth, a little (benevolent) social | manipulation to get what he wants will be more successful | before he barks orders for long hours or sacks people at | short notice. Carrot before the stick. | shadowfox wrote: | I generally agree with what you are saying. But: | | > certainly pushed our tech boundaries into _near science | fiction_ | | That bit seems a bit of an exaggeration to me. | SillyUsername wrote: | The reasoning: | | - Boeing laughed at SpaceX and their proposed rocket re- | use and cheap(er) space flight. Now Boeing is the no.3 | supplier to NASA, SpaceX at 2 and playing catch up. | | - Self driving cars were not an industry until Tesla | pushed it, it is still the pioneer in this respect as no | other car make has the same level of self driving | features. How cool is a car that drives to you on button | click? :) | | - No other _US_ company has announced humanoid robots | aside from Boston Dynamics, which are not for the general | public. | | - Tesla has pushed for secondary industries such battery | invovation and solar roof tiles (not regular panels on | roofs). This in itself is not new but is a future green | environment goal. | | - The Boring company goals may be a pipe dream (har har) | but the intent is there to provide hyper transportation, | akin to 50s trashy comic ideals. | | - How many non governmental industries can offer Ukraine | help with something like Starlink? Can't be many... | (honestly don't know but initially seems altruistic). | jcranmer wrote: | > - The Boring company goals may be a pipe dream (har | har) but the intent is there to provide hyper | transportation, akin to 50s trashy comic ideals. | | It's worth noting that what they're pushing is not | tunneling technology but a particular mass transit system | that is essentially a repackaging of personal rapid | transit (PRT). Although, unlike the PRT system | constructed 50 years ago and every other PRT system built | since, Musk's version requires human drivers (as it | relies on unmodified Tesla vehicles which are not self- | driving). | shagie wrote: | > - Self driving cars were not an industry until Tesla | pushed it, it is still the pioneer in this respect as no | other car make has the same level of self driving | features. How cool is a car that drives to you on button | click? :) | | Tesla was founded in 2003, and self driving wasn't a | thing to think about back then. | | DARPA had been working on getting the research for it | underway - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https | ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2004) -- | and that was announced in 2002. | | I'd suggest a read of https://www.wired.com/story/darpa- | grand-urban-challenge-self... to get a bit of perspective | on it. Also look at the number of teams that were trying | to do it back then and presumably had thought about it | and done some preliminary work on it even before ( | https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/11/08/107226/in- | the-19... ). | | This isn't "before Tesla, no one was doing it" it is much | more a "until recently, the necessary processing power | was impractical to have in a car." | stefan_ wrote: | I'm afraid you have drunk the kool aid. Self-driving cars | are an idea as old as the car itself, and many companies | are much further along than Tesla who are stuck on their | "no LIDAR" stance when LIDAR is rapidly becoming cheaper | and more available. Almost ironic from the company that | bet on lithium batteries for cars. The robots are a demo | gag (much like the smart summon, or the cybertruck, or | the semi, or ..). The "solar tiles" are a fire hazard and | the Tesla solar business a total shambles, which makes | sense since it was just a nepotistic bailout of | Solarcity. Hyperloop is dead and so is the Boring | company. | mensetmanusman wrote: | SpaceX alone succeeding is a once in a century event. | Tesla kicking off EV for the world as well. | blitzar wrote: | These are not complicated decisions to navigate. | omega3 wrote: | Twitter doesn't need "best people" - it's not innovating and | hasn't been for a very long time. | mrguyorama wrote: | Yeah but if they want to do anything more than struggle to | fight fires 24/7 they need at least average people, and | management that trusts them, and buy in for the work needed | to make a robust system. | neaden wrote: | Well it's currently operating at a loss, so if they don't | innovate somehow the company is doomed. | ben7799 wrote: | It's amazing how many techies seem to be unable to | understand this as if there was still infinite VC money and | cash raising via stock sale for every company that can't | figure out how to make money. | | If we get a general tech correction as part of this | downturn things are going to be very different for | companies that have been burning money for years. | crotho wrote: | Have you any idea what it takes simply to maintain a machine | such as twitter, let alone make even minor alterations? There | was a recent telling interview by someone who used to work | there who thought it wouldn't be long until the whole thing | collapses on its own because there were huge teams dedicated | to simply keeping the thing running. | thrown_22 wrote: | Back of the envelope calculation: | | A billion users, each tweeting once an hour with 140 | characters. That's 38.147 Megabytes/s. My laptop could | handle that raw volume. Increase it by an order of | magnitude for all the network nonsense and it can still run | on my 4 year old desktop. | | Twitter is not some hypertech company, it shouldn't need | more than a hundred engineers to run. I imagine that's the | bet Musk is making too. | cristiancavalli wrote: | What a terribly dishonest and overly-simplistic way of | modeling of a distributed system much less a simple web | service. found the engineer who, in their own words, | "couldn't code their way out of paper bag." | thrown_22 wrote: | If you're serving 40mb a second you don't _need_ a | distributed system. | | Twitter isn't Netflix. | cristiancavalli wrote: | It's pretty laughable you believe your own "math." I | guess even serving an actual front end doesn't factor | into your calculations. Hey go build something and you | might find out what it actually takes to build/maintain a | system of any real consequence instead of doing leet code | exercises and smelling your own brain farts. | thrown_22 wrote: | I guess you're right, you need 10,000 JS engineers to | change a light bulb. | greedo wrote: | In the same vein, look at how Plenty of Fish has a huge | customer base, and runs on very skimpy hardware. Back in | 2006 it had 45M visitors a month, served up over 1B page | views a month, all running off three database servers and | two load balanced webservers. Guess how many employees? | One, Markus Frind[1]. | | 1. http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture | | Of course things have changed, money will do that. | cristiancavalli wrote: | Twitter has about 10x that monthly visitor number just in | mDAU. And pof has scaled 100x! (To 100 employees -- that | seems pretty insane relative the traffic they have going | by this weird metric of "amount of data served should | roughly equal the number of employees by some ratio"). | Comparison also seems a bit lacking given the difference | in magnitude also the engineering problems involved (e.g. | moderation, botting etc.) Guessing also that creating a | dating site is not an exercise in needing a lot of | skilled engineering work given it's been a solved set of | problems since the late 90s. Hey Verizon has 132,000 | employees -- I guess they should only need a fraction of | that right since consumer cellular has 2,400? | watwut wrote: | "Innovating" is not the only nor primary thing that requires | "best people". | MrMan wrote: | innovating is a meaningless term in ad tech companies. | optimizing I think is a better word. | javchz wrote: | I agree, just keeping things running at that scale requiere | people with some impressive skills | omega3 wrote: | We'll see, my bet is that nothing catastrophic will | happen as a result of layoffs and hiring freeze at | Twitter. | kevingadd wrote: | Twitter has already been having reliability issues for | weeks or more, that's not going to get better if you lay | off a bunch of your ops and sweng personnel | PuppyTailWags wrote: | Revenue-wise I think a fake checkmarked Nintendo being up | with a photo of mario doing the middle finger for hours | does a lot, and spells not great stuff. My understanding | is that advertisers aren't even locking in contracts for | next year or similar. | mrguyorama wrote: | I bet advertisers LOVE this situation. They probably | weren't excited about how centralized systems are, which | robs them of some of their say and power in the | ecosystem. This is an opportunity for them to show what | control and influence they have and basically a warning | to others not to toy with their demands. | _fat_santa wrote: | It's fun to read about this stuff in the news and comment on it | here and on Twitter but the reality couldn't be more different. | If you're qualified enough to be in the running to work at | Twitter, you likely have many options available to you | (employment wise). None of those people are trying to go work | at Twitter because there's just too much BS flying around over | there. | | If this keeps up the only way Twitter is going to be able to | attract talent IMO is by offering massive comp packages, | because that's the only way you're going to get people that | aren't die hard Twitter/Elon Musk fans to want to come there. | thrown_22 wrote: | All tech companies have been hiring bottom of the barrel | engineers who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. | This is just a realignment where where knowing how to put the | lego pieces together isn't enough any more. | throwaway0x7E6 wrote: | covid is over. it's been over the day we got something else we | are supposed to be agitated about. at this point, it feels like a | distant memory. nobody cares or pretends to care about it | anymore. | | so why shouldn't we go back to the old normal? | nimih wrote: | It's possible that a lot of office workers have decided they | have good reasons to prefer working from home beyond the highly | contagious airborne disease. I know that I personally have, but | further research is probably necessary to determine whether | this is a widespread trend. | system2 wrote: | Most companies already realized remote working doesn't work | out. Hard to admit but it is the truth. | watwut wrote: | > so why shouldn't we go back to the old normal? | | Because we like the new normal. | c9da4a wrote: | Living in a city is unpayable, roads are congested at peak | hours, the environmental damage from commuting, etc | happytoexplain wrote: | "Why shouldn't we go back" doesn't have any more weight than | "why shouldn't we stay". The old normal relies on the | acceptance of a lot of life-time wasted and a certain amount of | misery, and people were increasingly unwilling to accept it. | The pandemic simply provided an impetus - that's all. | spaniard89277 wrote: | Ive got covid last friday at my office. Large gathering of | people without proper ventilation. | | Now my company has to pay me while I'm laying in bed writing | this as I'm not capable of doing much useful. | | Im not a dev but a technician, I just solve tickets throug a | computer. We never were more prodictive not had so much income. | What was the point? | | I won't sabotage this company but honestly, all companies doing | this feel like they play their employees because they can. | | If they want to treat me like this, then I don't see why should | care about the business and not try to game the system as much | as I can. | | It's been hard because I have a work ethic, but cmon. | davesque wrote: | Haven't you ever been forced into a situation that turned out | to be better in certain ways? | | For many people, discovering the quality of life improvements | afforded by remote work, that were forced on us by COVID, has | been a blessing. Many have reasonably argued that there wasn't | much loss in productivity compared with the huge boon in life | satisfaction resulting from remote work. | | Your comment doesn't respond to the opposing view as though it | could be reasonable. | insane_dreamer wrote: | The job climate is such, with lots of SV layoffs, that this | requirement will probably work now where it wouldn't have worked | six months ago (engs would have jumped from Twitter to another SV | co) | slantedview wrote: | A lot of Twitter employees live nowhere near SV, or even an | office. The only way to interpret this is that Musk either | wants to force more people to leave, or doesn't realize that | they're going to leave as a result of this move. | the_doctah wrote: | Absolutely. My employer weaponized the job market to force RTO | in the same way. They were visibly terrified to force RTO when | the market was hot. | jstx1 wrote: | > Musk told workers in the email that he wants to see | subscriptions account for half of Twitter's revenue. | | Given the direction in which their advertising revenue is going, | they might get there. | shapefrog wrote: | > subscriptions account for half of Twitter's revenue | | A lofty ambition indeed. Getting $5billion out of twitter users | or an anual subscription of $15 out of 100% of the users sounds | like hard work. However, if you drop the avertising revenue to | $350 million you can do the WhatsApp $1 a year model. | rdtwo wrote: | Seems dumb, ads pay more than users | kevingadd wrote: | Even worse, they're offering reduced ads as a part of their | new subscriptions, so every subscription actively decreases | ad revenue. | pelorat wrote: | How is that different from YouTube premium, sure it's more | than $8 but comes with zero ads. | whateveracct wrote: | Lowering the denominator is a fun way to get to half ^_^ | manuelabeledo wrote: | Lay off a sizable chunk of your workforce, and then make a | sizable chunk of those who kept their jobs miserable. | | Genius /s | kridsdale2 wrote: | Ensures that only the most hardcore mascohists remain, who you | can abuse for huge productivity extraction vs the rest-and-vest | type. | vagab0nd wrote: | Or quit voluntarily. | BryantD wrote: | As Musk and Calacanis discussed between themselves: | https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-jason-calacanis- | mes... | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | " _at least_ 40 hours in the office " | | Why would anyone work for this douche? Even if you make a lot of | money, you aren't going to get your time back later. There's no | reward for killing yourself to appease a rich workaholic. The | only prize you win is burning out or getting laid off. | kisstheblade wrote: | What happened to Musk's claim "I don't care about the economics | at all"? Sure seems to be top priority. | rurp wrote: | Man, I'm starting to think that you can't take this guy at his | word. | wordsarelies wrote: | This kinda thing is great for the "remote work at all hours" is | the erzats demon keeping software companies alive. If it is, | we'll likely see some downtime, lots of typical E company results | (burned out software folks, higher turnover than is industry | standard, and much lower pay since Elon doesn't negotiate at | silicon valley salary expectations at any of his companies... | | If in 2 years Twitter isn't significantly smaller (think 1500 | people) and significantly cheaper to run I'd be surprised. | | If in 2 years twitter isn't the worst place to work in the valley | I'd also be surprised. | [deleted] | voxl wrote: | Twitter is going to not exist in 2 years. The financials make | no sense, and we already have influencers making fun of | subscribers. Subscribing is not only going to create a | dichotomy that drives away "economy-of-scale" users but it's | going to quickly gain a reputation of being "lame." | dusing wrote: | Care to wager? | jimt1234 wrote: | If, in 1 year (or less), Twitter headquarters isn't moved to | Texas, I'd be surprised. | slantedview wrote: | Also, if in 2 years, Twitter's revenue isn't a fraction of what | it was just before the Musk takeover, I'd be surprised. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | From the NYT article: | | "On Wednesday, three top Twitter executives responsible for | security, privacy and compliance also resigned, according to two | people familiar with the matter and internal documents seen by | The Times. | | The departing executives include Lea Kissner, Twitter's chief | information security officer; Damien Kieran, its chief privacy | officer; and Marianne Fogarty, its chief compliance officer. | Their resignations came a day ahead of a deadline for Twitter to | submit a compliance report to the Federal Trade Commission, which | is overseeing privacy practices at the company as part of a 2011 | settlement. | | Twitter has typically reviewed its products for privacy problems | before rolling them out to users, to avoid additional fines from | the F.T.C. and remain in compliance with the settlement. But | because of a rapid pace of product development under Mr. Musk, | engineers could be forced to "self-certify" so that their | projects meet privacy requirements, one employee wrote in an | internal message seen by The Times. | | "Elon has shown that he cares only about recouping the losses | he's incurring as a result of failing to get out of his binding | obligation to buy Twitter," the employee wrote. The changes to | Twitter's F.T.C. reviews could result in heavy fines and put | people working for the company at risk, the person warned." | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/elon-musk-twit... | | This may be the beginning of the end for "social media" because | the constantly buried truths are coming to the surface. For | example, 100% advertising and 0% journalism as a "business | model", web user privacy, "tech" malfeasance, and the myth of | "free". | | Noncommercial web users are not ready to pay fees to use | websites. Not all web use is commercial, nor can all web use be | commercialised. | | Noncommercial web use is real. However the web as imagined by | "tech" companies, i.e., massive data harvesting websites that | produce no content, where all web usage is surveilled and all | data collected is purported to have commercial value, may be more | fantasy than reality. | shagie wrote: | Some other context from a WaPo article - | https://wapo.st/3ht1DYu | | > The agency said that it was "tracking the developments at | Twitter with deep concern" and that it was prepared to take | action to ensure the company was complying with a settlement | known as a consent order, which requires Twitter to comply with | certain privacy and security requirements because of | allegations of past data misuse. | | > Twitter was first put under a consent order in 2011 and it | agreed to a new order earlier this year. If the FTC finds | Twitter is not complying with that order, it could fine the | company hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially damaging | the company's already precarious financial state. | | > ... The new decree required Twitter to start enhanced privacy | and security programs, which were to be audited by a third | party. Under that decree, Twitter is required to conduct a | privacy assessment of any new products it launches. | | > ... The meltdown of the security leadership is especially | fraught because an FTC audit was expected by January, according | to two people familiar with the schedule. One said that Kissner | and other executives had been hiring, despite a company-wide | freeze, in a frantic effort to meet compliance rules before | then. | csmpltn wrote: | Here's a cool and perhaps unforeseen hypothetical turn-of-events: | 100% of Twitter's staff give their resignation letter on Friday, | and don't show up to work. Leadership wakes up to a collapsing | platform, a 44 billion USD bill to pay, with no one to keep the | lights on or answer the PagerDuty alerts. Play stupid games, win | stupid prizes? | | No time for silly "knowledge transfers", or "onboarding new team | members". You just wake up to learn everybody left and you're | left with nothing. | unwind wrote: | Don't typical contracts for people like Twitter's staff in the | US come with timing requirements on quitting? As in, you can't | really quit "on the day", you have to leave proper notice and | so on? | | I understand that in practice once someone says "I quit!" there | might be little interest from the employer to keep them around, | but in a scenario like you outline I would be very afraid of | legal ramifications. | | Just a thought, I don't really have an opinion here, Twitter is | pretty "meh" in my view. I of course hope it ends well for the | employees! | | Edit: spelling, and fix weird final double bang. | neaden wrote: | According to this: | https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/23451198/twitter-ftc- | elo... a twitter lawyer has told employees that their | contracts specify they are a remote first workplace, so it's | unclear if Elon has the actual right to force anyone to | return to the office. | georgemcbay wrote: | In at-will states like California he doesn't really need | the "right" to fire anyone (assuming he isn't firing them | for any protected class reasons). I doubt the majority of | Twitter employees (in the US anyway) have any sort of | individual employment contract which specifies anything | different than the typical at-will employment. | | I suspect though that if he does fire people for refusing | to return to the office that given the circumstances | (twitter very openly being a 'remote first' workplace for | years) that states would view that as a constructive | dismissal and at the very least those fired would be | eligible for unemployment benefits despite being fired "for | cause". | slekker wrote: | Even if you can't really quit, you can just pretend to work, | or "silent quit" | yazaddaruvala wrote: | Most states in the US are "At will employment". | | You can quit on the day! It is just not considered "polite" / | "professional". | jeffrallen wrote: | Buying a company, firing all the executives and then half | the employees is also not very polite or professional. | | What's good for the goose is good for the gander. | mk_stjames wrote: | California is an 'at-will' work state, which means you can | both be fired at-will or you can leave a company at-will with | zero notice (it goes both ways). I know, because I've done it | (left, that is, with only notice given the day-of). Unless | this has changed in the years since I've left CA/the US. | TulliusCicero wrote: | No, you can generally just quit instantly if you want to. | Companies can also fire you instantly (but mass layoffs do | have some rules). | | There's a general convention of giving two weeks' notice, but | it's not a legal requirement. | eep_social wrote: | No. Off the top of my head, my understanding is that the vast | majority of full time jobs in the US are at-will employment | which means there is no required notice period. It's | considered a best practice to give two weeks or more but | that's a social contract and not enforceable in any way. In | the past, when employee reference checks were a real thing, | that two weeks might buy you a better reference, but even | that has been stripped away now with references handled by HR | and only confirming dates of employment and conditions of | termination (this is to avoid lawsuits I think). | umanwizard wrote: | > Don't typical contracts for people like Twitter's staff in | the US come with timing requirements on quitting? As in, you | can't really quit "on the day", you have to leave proper | notice and so on? | | No. The vast majority of tech jobs are "at-will" on both | sides: either party can terminate the relationship at any | moment. | | Giving two weeks' notice is a cultural norm. | cwilkes wrote: | Musk: "revenue per employee (1 remaining) has gone through the | roof!" | thrown_22 wrote: | If only software devs had setup a union or something. | | No, we're too privileged to be fired: | | https://ma.nu/blog/not-going-anywhere | | Oops: https://ma.nu/blog/bye-twitter | kleiba wrote: | Friday afternoon: 100% of Twitter's staff are competing with | each other to find a new job. | loloquwowndueo wrote: | Competing with 11k people fired from Meta. FTFY | jreese wrote: | ... and everyone laid off from Meta this week ... | csmpltn wrote: | Half of them were already fired (more will probably follow), | and the rest will be messed with for months (if not years) to | come (as is evident by the email being discussed here). | Having nothing to lose... | grumple wrote: | 370k software engineer jobs listed on linkedin right now. So | each person laid off from these companies gets to choose | between 10 open roles at other companies. And that's just | what's listed on linkedin; most jobs aren't. | cableshaft wrote: | There aren't 370k jobs paying FAANG or near-FAANG | compensation and benefits. Probably about 10% of that is | paying anywhere near what Twitter employees are used to | getting. | | I'm making close to the low end of an entry level software | engineer at Twitter according to levels.fyi, and I'm making | above average for senior software engineers in my region, | based on recruiter/job posting salary ranges and posted | salaries on these websites. Haven't gotten a regional | recruiter offering anything competitive in the past year | since I started this job. | | Also the unlisted jobs paying anywhere near Twitter level | compensation is probably close to 0%, so no need to add | them to the mix. | UncleOxidant wrote: | > Play stupid games, win stupid prices | | Prizes. Win stupid prizes. | csmpltn wrote: | You got it, chief. | coffeeblack wrote: | You stay home then. I'd go (if I worked at Tw). | [deleted] | yrgulation wrote: | Sounds like something i would love to do. Musk, the peepole | farmer, would be in for a treat. But those who wish to fill in | their social voids with onsite work wouldn't be game. | [deleted] | [deleted] | whiskey14 wrote: | It seems that Musk at this point is completely unaware that he is | a walking contradiction. | | On one hand, he is a technologist. Forward thinking and driving | towards the future. | | On the other hand, he is an old fashioned factory owner. He views | his workforce as pure labour and can't accept that he can't force | his employees to work under his total control. He also can't | accept the gain in life capital for his employees in working from | home for his workforce and that the future of work for humanity | is probably decentralised offices and WFH, not middle managed, | over the shoulder, supervised, centralised offices. | lithos wrote: | Why are you surprised? He wants employees in space and on Mars | where he'll have even greater control (when employees | start/leave employment, all information in/out of their | station, the amount of mass employees will own, and even | control when authorities are allowed on the station if at all). | lakomen wrote: | He's not a technologist, he's a ruthless capitalist playing | with other people's money. Idk why he gets so much support. | That guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He doesn't care about | the planet, or the people, he cares about his bottom line and | nothing else. | infamouscow wrote: | Do you have anything of substance to add besides ad hominem | attacks that don't really even make sense? | | Let's break this down: | | > He's not a technologist, he's a ruthless capitalist playing | with other people's money. Idk why he gets so much support. | | Calling someone a capitalist isn't the dig you think it is, | especially on a website run by a VC firm. | | Musk has a track record for returning profit to investors. | | > That guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing. | | Calling someone the boogeyman convinces nobody. What exactly | are you warning about? | | > He doesn't care about the planet, or the people, he cares | about his bottom line and nothing else. | | Have you heard of Tesla EVs? | helf wrote: | > Have you heard of Tesla EVs? | | Have you heard that didn't invent them or even start the | company or even cofound it? | | Anyways, yes, he has done a lot of good and _is_ actually | smart. But it has also gone to his head and the more power | and wealth he accrues the more it shows. Like with most | people. | | Mindlessly bashing him is just as much of a waste of time | as mindlessly sucking his knob. | | It is all sooo boooooring. | Gwypaas wrote: | > Tesla was founded (as Tesla Motors) on July 1, 2003 by | Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, | California. [...] Ian Wright was the third employee, | joining a few months later.[2] The three went looking for | venture capital (VC) funding in January 2004[2] and | connected with Elon Musk, who contributed US$6.5 million | of the initial (Series A) US$7.5 million[10] round of | investment in February 2004 and became chairman of the | board of directors.[2] Musk then appointed Eberhard as | the CEO.[11] J.B. Straubel joined in May 2004[2] as the | fifth employee.[12] A lawsuit settlement agreed to by | Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five | (Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk and Straubel) to call | themselves co-founders.[13] > Musk took an | active role within the company and oversaw Roadster | product design at a detailed level, but was not deeply | involved in day-to-day business operations.[14] Eberhard | acknowledged that Musk was the person who insisted from | the beginning on a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer body | and that Musk led design of components ranging from the | power electronics module to the headlamps and other | styling.[15] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc. | | I would suggest going to the source rather than writing | Reddit level comments. | mrguyorama wrote: | Getting given the title by a court settlement doesn't | make you smart or a visionary, it makes you a petty | asshole. | TylerE wrote: | Sounds like your're agreeing with GP? | | He didn't actually found Paypal or SpaceX either. | fassssst wrote: | EV's do not save the planet. EV's are a way to profit off | government subsidies. | vkou wrote: | Correct. The future of sustainable transportation is the | electric trolley, the electric train, the electric bus, | the electric scooter, and the electric bicycle. | | It is not a largely-single-occupant two-and-a-half-ton | electric sedan. | jmeister wrote: | What if he(and others like me) believe that working in-person | really is truly necessary for accomplishing great work? | wolrah wrote: | > What if he(and others like me) believe that working in- | person really is truly necessary for accomplishing great | work? | | Well, it's his (and your) right to be wrong but that's a | belief that was already on very shaky ground before 2020 and | has by this point been absolutely proven wrong. | | Unless your job actually requires physical interaction with | or proximity to a thing or other people it can almost | certainly be done equally well remotely. | | Processes may have to be adjusted to account for remote | workers and even the way people work when working remotely, | but almost 100% of jobs that take place at a desk in front of | a computer can and should be allowed to be remote. | | The biggest thing that doesn't work in a remote environment | is micromanagement, so bad bosses who feel the need to | micromanage hate it, but those people are terrible so if they | don't like it that's a good thing. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | I don't know, it seems not much creatively came out of tech | since 2020. It's all continuing trends started before that | or living on past glory. I think you could easily argue | that creativity is down in the industry. | JakeTheAndroid wrote: | What are you using arrive at this opinion? What | creativity existed in a measurable way before 2020 and | what does that metric look like now? Who is less creative | in this environment and in what ways are they less | creative? What amount of creativity is necessary for a | business to operate successfully or solve meaningful | problems? | | Not all problems require new or genuinely creative | solutions either. And it seems really difficult to try | and measure the creative output by individual | contributors at any given company. You have no way of | gleaning the micro decisions or solutions that people | come up with for their internal issues. So this doesn't | seem like one could "easily argue" this point at all, in | fact it seems quite difficult. | | Are you suggesting that product offerings are less | creative as a whole? And if so, again what metric are you | using to arrive at this conclusion? And are there really | no trends of this same metric before 2020? | ashes-of-sol wrote: | watwut wrote: | > he can't force his employees to work under his total control | | That is because he actually can force them to be under his | control. | | > He also can't accept the gain in life capital for his | employees in working from home for his workforce and that the | future of work for humanity is probably decentralized offices | and WFH, not middle managed, over the shoulder, supervised, | centralized offices. | | I don't think he cares about their lives. Meanwhile, long hours | in office have multiple advantages for controlling CEO like | Musk. The people are removed from outside influences (friends, | family, time to read) and closed in his own echo chamber. | Whatever he wants to normalize, it will be harder for them to | see is not normal outside of that bubble. It is another variant | on what cults, monasteries, armies etc do ... the more they | isolate you from outside influences, the better you surrender | own agency. | | Plus, people not comfortable with above self exclude. It is win | win win for ceo. Not necessary effective, but produces strong | loyalty and obeisance. Which has advantages also for | productivity. | whiskey14 wrote: | I get what you're saying but does that produce the most | effective, creative and innovative workforce required to | compete in the technology industry? | watwut wrote: | Creative and innovative - absolutely not. Effective - | mostly not, except in some situations. There are many ways | how to be ineffective tho, this is one of them many. I | think that you dont need to be super effective to compete | in the technology industry. | | Will he be able to compete? I dont know. Musk twitter moves | seem incompetent overall to me. But so far, his charizma | and money (to certain people) did allowed him to get quite | far in his previous companies. He did treated his previous | employees pretty much the same way. | MrMan wrote: | if you look at musk and his friends talking about how to | restructure twitter it looks less incompetent. if you | remember that he is under a mountain of financial | pressure you can also see that these moves are for | survival, not to make twitter more awesome. a decimated | shell of a company is preferable, for someone who just | massively overpaid for a non-growth company, to a much | larger organization with higher cost structure. | | I dont understand why he wanted twitter and I think the | incompetence is in the way he pursued the deal, but once | one is saddled with such a problem the steps to get out | from under it (or at least minimize the damage) are | clear. forcing employees out is necessary. | watwut wrote: | It still looks incompetent. Especially in the area of | treating advisers. And in the way he is rolling out new | feature, no wait, he does not, cancel that out, actually | it is going to be done ... nope, yes. Print out code on | paper, nope, shredder it actually. | | > you can also see that these moves are for survival | | They don't seem like moves of survival. They seem | impulsive, emotional and causing him damage. | | > forcing employees out is necessary | | He just had layoff. Literally, it is not like he would | need to send midnight eamils about going back to office | tomorrow to make them go. | prirun wrote: | > I dont understand why he wanted twitter | | The thing I read that made the most sense is that he | never wanted it. He wanted to use the buyout as cover for | selling a bunch of Tesla stock. No due diligence was done | because he fully expected to just back out of the deal, | but that didn't happen because he and his billionaire | buddies were not so happy about getting deposed and | dragging all their dirty laundry into the public. | rohit89 wrote: | This take is parroted a lot but makes no sense because he | already has a ready made excuse for selling shares with | spacex. | jstx1 wrote: | Cutting edge technologist for the investors, old school factory | owner for managing people. Makes perfect sense if you're trying | to extract the max amount of money. | shapefrog wrote: | > Makes perfect sense if you're trying to extract the max | amount of money | | Offshoring everything to the third world makes perfect sense | to the old school factory owner too. | whiskey14 wrote: | True, but the fact that technology is going to reinvent | everything, including work seems to be an oversight. I'm not | sure an old school factory owner is going to attract the best | people in a highly skilled industry | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | Similar to the formula Bezos is using. They are both making a | lot of money doing it, just like the robber barons of the | Gilded Age did. | LegitShady wrote: | Not letting people work from home doesn't make you a robber | baron. | ukoki wrote: | The cheapest way to downsize is to have employees quit of their | own accord. Removing benefits like WFH incentives this. | kace91 wrote: | This is exactly why in my country the law uses the concept of | 'acquired rights'. | | Basically, if an employee is consistently given a perk for a | certain time, said perk implicitly becomes part of the | contract and taking it away allows the worker to quit | receiving the same compensation as if they've been fired. | harshalizee wrote: | Curious, which country(s) is this? | zeroonetwothree wrote: | Seems like that could just make companies hesitant to give | out any perks in the first place. | | Law of unintended consequences and all that. | notfromhere wrote: | Stating a remote policy in your contract and then forcing | an RTO is basically constructive dismissal | mrguyorama wrote: | Most high GDP countries don't have a business culture of | optimizing for maximum cash in the owners hand at all | possible costs, and indeed, even are interested in giving | their employees a fair shake. Most places understand that | employees are valuable and deserve dignity and respect, | and have taken steps to ensure they get it. | [deleted] | whiskey14 wrote: | So do you think he'll eventually bring back WFH for Tesla and | Twitter when they want to increase headcount? | tailspin2019 wrote: | Based on reasoning in my other comment [0] I think this is | highly likely. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544756 | tailspin2019 wrote: | > The cheapest way to downsize is to have employees quit of | their own accord. Removing benefits like WFH incentives this. | | This is why I found reading his published chat messages [0] | so interesting. | | From the horse's mouth (the horse in this case being Jason | Calacanis) to Musk, when talking about restructuring: | | > "2 day a week Office requirement= 20% voluntary departures" | | So it does seem possible that this could be at least partly | driving this. | | As an aside: The other interesting nugget in the msg logs was | discussion about taking Twitter private to restructure | (because it would require haemorrhaging users while they | cleaned up bots etc. - and also likely because you wouldn't | be able to take such aggressive actions re. mass sackings in | quite the same way when public) and then going public again | once this restructuring process has been completed. | | [0] https://danluu.com/elon-twitter-texts/ | DonsDiscountGas wrote: | Except that you lose your best people this way, rather than | average/worst. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | Or maybe a mix? Although maybe Musk thinks the in person | workers are the best. | cmeacham98 wrote: | People that quit voluntarily are always skewed towards | the high end, because better employees have an easier | time finding another job with similar benefits/pay but | has that one thing they want. | | The only way this would make sense as a downsizing tactic | would be if you believe that employees that prefer to | work remote (enough to the point where they would | consider quitting) are significantly worse than the | average Twitter employee. | praptak wrote: | The worst will stay and do so with a vengeance. | JoeyBananas wrote: | codingdave wrote: | I've got to imagine that some of their revenue losses in | advertising are due to the fact that various companies/brands | simply don't want to be associated with Musk in the slightest. If | he was serious about ad revenue, he'd also be serious about | Twitter's branding. | | Note that I'm not saying there are no Musk fans in the world - | there are. But he is divisive, which is a trait not beneficial | when trying to strengthen your brand. | kypro wrote: | I am split on the remote work thing from a productivity / | creativity perspective. | | I do think there are times when I'm less productivity working | from home compared to the office. I also think as a team we're | less creative. Some of the best stuff I've done in my career has | come out of casual conversations with my team about the stuff | we're building. I've noticed I don't think about what I'm | building as much when working remote, I'm just building it. | | That said, I don't think 100% office is good either. That tends | to just burn me out and I know other people I work with say the | same thing. I think I'm at my best when it's 2-3 days in the | office and the rest working from home. | | 40 hours in the office is really extreme these days. And any | potential benefit of having employees working together in an | office 24/7 is going to be negated by their dissatisfaction. Were | I working at Twitter I'd probably be looking for a new job after | this announcement. Not so much for the remote work decision | either, but just the general lack of respect for how the | employees prefer to work. This lack of flexibility probably means | Musk won't just stop at remote work but he'll want keep track of | your productivity, when you arriving in the morning, how long you | take for lunch, etc. Working for these kinds of people in my | experience is a living hell. | aperson_hello wrote: | And the fact that Twitter employees aren't all near an office. | If you live in Minneapolis, you're not exactly going to be | happy that you have to go into the office (closest one is 6+ | hours away in Chicago). It's not even a choice to go into the | office or not at that point - it's an ultimatum of move | immediately for a job where everything is on fire or be fired! | schnable wrote: | I think the purely remote workers were already axed. | whiskey14 wrote: | I'm beginning to think that collective distributed satellite | offices is going to be big. Like WeWork but for companies to | house their local staff and far less culty. Would help if they | had standing desks, folding treadmills, three screens and | everything else for a superb dev experience that is a bit of a | pain to set up at home. | Spooky23 wrote: | The US Gov pioneered this. It didn't work very well. | hnews_account_1 wrote: | That's called an office dude. Tf you saying?! | rdtwo wrote: | I mean that's the worst of both worlds. You get to be a | remote employee as in you don't sit with your team but you | still have to commute to an office | whiskey14 wrote: | The point would be that the commute would be no more than | 15 minutes to your office. Ideally walking distance | eckza wrote: | Not all of us want to live within 15 walking minutes of | _anywhere_. | shaoonb wrote: | That's your choice. I would love to be within 15 minutes | walk of my office, but I can't realistically afford it, | so the choice of a longer commute is made for me. | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Fine, but please stop making it illegal for those of us | who do want walkability | GoOnThenDoTell wrote: | Ok but whats the point when you're just on zoom anyway | postalrat wrote: | Teams should be reorganized so that they meet together. | dagw wrote: | So people get put on teams based on where they live | rather than what they are good at or what the team needs? | postalrat wrote: | No. You do both. | lamontcg wrote: | You can now no longer reorg or have people move jobs | without physically moving to someplace else around the | world. | postalrat wrote: | Says you. | yrgulation wrote: | > Were I working at Twitter I'd probably be looking for a new | job after this announcement. | | Highest impact is mid project. You know, to make it hurt. | bt4u wrote: | corytheboyd wrote: | > I've noticed I don't think about what I'm building as much | when working remote, I'm just building it. | | I'm the complete opposite haha, I do much better deep thinking | at home. This doesn't invalidate your point, nor am I trying | to. More just saying, we all work differently, and all of our | styles are equally valid. Hybrid WFH is great :D | trey-jones wrote: | If I could WFS (Work From Shower), man I'd really get some | good stuff done! WFT (Work From Toilet) also a good | candidate. | e40 wrote: | How long is your commute? | pcurve wrote: | Rest of the world has largely gone back to office to work now, | even if it is part time. | | I feel the U.S. is the last man standing. | | For knowledge workers, WAH works well for self motivated, high | performing individuals, in a high functioning work environment. | You know, the HN people. | | My take is, we'll lose competitive edge over time if we insist | on WAH for the mass. | zikduruqe wrote: | > I think I'm at my best when it's 2-3 days in the office and | the rest working from home. | | And all the evidence agrees. | https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-unintended-consequences... | kodah wrote: | My take is probably a bit more hot and less to do with anything | provable. I think the real reason for "return to work" is to | justify high salaries. If everyone dispersed across the United | States then people in the highest markets would get significant | drops in pay. It's no secret that subsidizing extremely high | housing costs has the benefit of earning those people more than | the average worker doing the same work over the same period of | time. | | Productivity is just corporate speak for, "do what I say when I | say it". | asdff wrote: | It's not like your income is scaled to the housing costs | though. I just checked craigslist for Los angeles and | Columbus, Ohio. 1 bedroom average in LA is $2000 and change, | Columbus its $1000. For a year in the average 1 bedroom, you | are only paying $12k more or so for the unit in LA. Other | costs are about the same, the same MSRP for consumer goods, | about the same grocery bill (certain food is honestly very | cheap in LA due to its year round availability), about the | same $10 pints of beers and $12 entrees at your typical late | 20s and up drinking/eating establishment. | | Most engineer salaries however are substantially higher on | the west coast than in the midwest, much higher than a $12k | pay bump that would have covered the difference in housing | costs for average 1 bedrooms between these markets. | | I don't think its so much that engineers on the west coast | pay a lot more in cost of living and therefore have to get a | higher salary to put food on the table the same as they do | out east. I think its simply that engineers who happen to be | on the west coast are tapped into an excellent network of job | opportunities and tend to be highly trained, and for | companies to get at this network for its talent themselves, | they need to pay these inflated west coast rates to get into | the door. This is just what the prices of this market have | come to be, and they must have gotten to such a point through | other factors than the paltry in comparison difference in | cost of living. | Supermancho wrote: | > Most engineer salaries however are substantially higher | on the west coast than in the midwest, | | In northern CA this holds true and even moreso in Seattle. | In southern california (notably because you mention Los | Angeles), this is not true. There are high paying jobs in | SoCal, but they are much scarcer than the talent pool. | While there are more opportunities in SoCal than other | parts of the west coast, they are lower paying and worse | conditions overall that are closer to midwest counterparts. | This view is borne of 40 years of experience in SoCal (and | everyone I worked with). Moving to Seattle, I instantly | made 30% more AND rent was cheaper. | asdff wrote: | FWIW average rents in seattle are about $1600 a month for | 1 bedrooms on craigslist right now, so you'd only be | saving $7200 a year living in Columbus Ohio. I know | salary data online is what it is, but from zippia.com at | least average SWE salary is $75k in Columbus, and $115k | in seattle, so even with the cost of living difference of | $7k factored in, there is a huge bump in pay for this job | market of engineers versus the market in Columbus, OH. | greedo wrote: | I live in the midwest, in a house that's appraised around | $350K. Every time I visit family on the West coast, I look | at similar house prices, and they're all at least 3x or 4x. | No way could I afford that; and I sure wouldn't get a huge | salary bump for relocating. | serverholic wrote: | I secretly agree with you. I think the ideal situation is to | accommodate both sets of needs. Personally I prefer 100% remote | but if someone wants hybrid then that's fine too. | | I say secretly because usually I'm a strict remote advocate | because I acknowledge that executives really would like | everyone to be back in the office and I'd rather kill myself | than do that. | macjc wrote: | I know most studies show remote work improves productivity. I | have the opposite experience even though I need to take one | hour to commute one way. Our office is 80% empty on average. I | think this has greatly hurt the interaction between people, | increased friction and slowed down project progress. I am sure | some people are more efficient at home, but there might be a | silent majority, who enjoy doing less work remotely and never | voice themselves (or even say the opposite). | BigJ1211 wrote: | In most places it seems to be the opposite from what I gather | from my clients. Small majority of people prefer to go into | the office. Especially those with kids. And they are vocal | about it. | | I don't have kids, so for me productivity is higher at home. | However, we're running a hybrid setup at my place of work | because it indeed seems to give you the best of both worlds. | kibwen wrote: | I agree that there are pros and cons to remote work, and that | it should be possible to have a frank discussion about where | the balance lies. | | However, that is sadly irrelevant to this news item, as Musk | isn't banning remote work because of any logical consideration | of its merits. He's banning remote work because he's an | authoritarian micromanager who believes that workers are to be | treated like cattle. | SamReidHughes wrote: | He is spending his own money to pay the employees. He has | every goddamn right to be "authoritarian" when spending his | own money. | kweingar wrote: | Is it invalid to criticize any policy ever that a company | imposes on its employees? | alistairSH wrote: | _pending his own money to pay the employee_ | | If you're claiming his paying them out-of-pocket, can you | provide a citation? | grumple wrote: | That is explicitly untrue. We have labor laws in this | country and many others. | | Beyond that, all behavior is not reasonable just because | it's done with ones own money. | lrvick wrote: | Everyone has the right to quit too. Anyone still at Twitter | who is not sharpening their resumes and applying for new | jobs at this point is a fool. | v-erne wrote: | Yeah, sure. Because society and culture does not change and | evolve. It's standing still like its 1905 when predatory | capitalism was all the rage and people was still angry for | loosing all their literal slaves. At this scale those are | not just his "own" money otherwise we are going to have | another Nero and Caligula moments again in the future. | [deleted] | rurp wrote: | Just because certain scummy behavior is legal doesn't make | it ethical or a good business decision. Given what I have | seen of his behavior I want absolutely nothing to do with | Elon and his companies, either as a customer or employee, | and am sure many others feel the same. | Someone1234 wrote: | That doesn't make him immune from criticism or being | described as authoritarian. A negative view on an employer | may not have an immediate impact but medium to long term it | can make hiring and retaining difficult, which can drive up | costs. | otikik wrote: | "He has every right to call them Negroes, after all he owns | the plantation" | jbm wrote: | I'm trying to understand, is this comment a response to | him ending remote work, or is this related to something | else? | | If it is the former it is really uncalled for and | downplays the struggle of African Americans in the United | States. | | (Work at home, used to work in an awful office, still | nowhere near slavery) | mattkrause wrote: | I assume this is a reference to the lawsuits accusing | Tesla of racial discrimination, including calling an area | staffed with Black workers "The Plantation" | | https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- | transportation/tesla-... | jbm wrote: | Unbelievable. Thank you for the share. | PraetorianGourd wrote: | First of all, that isn't the word that racist, slave- | owning, plantation-owning population would use. If you | are going to make a reference to our sad history in the | United States of chattel slavery, use the accurate word. | It doesn't do anyone a service to water down the absolute | dehumanization the enslaved experienced at the hands of | their "owners" (I quote that word to show disdain for the | concept of humans owning humans, not to minimize the fact | of ownership). | | Secondly, you have some gall to compare a CEO setting | policies that are well within the confines of labor laws | with human slavery. Beyond the absurdity of your | comparison, don't forget that Twitter employees literally | have the right to walk away. That is the antithesis of | slavery. | | You are doing your own argument a massive disservice by | making such absurd accusations. Instead of arguing on the | merits of remote vs. in-person work, you invite an | argument on your analogies. This is the same as calling | anyone you disagree with politically a Nazi. Not only | does it debase the absolute evil practiced by actual | Nazis, it ends any chance of effective debate. | | Be better than that, please. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I didn't take the comment you are responding to in that | way at all (comparing Musk's actions to that of a slave- | owner). I believed the OP was reacting to the "it's | Musk's money he can treat his employees as he likes" -- | by way of an analogy that you thought too extreme. | | (To be sure, if OP had used the "N-word" I am quite sure | there would be much more condemnation though that would | have unfortunately then entirely missed the point.) | PraetorianGourd wrote: | > I believed the OP was reacting to the "it's Musk's | money he can treat his employees as he likes" -- by way | of an analogy that you thought too extreme. | | That is exactly the problem. The analogy was that Musk | akin to a plantation owner, and his prerogative vis-a-vis | twitter employees (by virtue of being CEO, a position he | gained through a takeover with his "money") is akin to | the rights plantation owners practiced vis-a-vis slaves | on the plantation. This is exactly what the person I | replied to implied. | | The problem I had was never with whether a CEO has a | right to set policies like banning employees from remote | work. The problem is that the analogy directly compared | _employees_ to _slaves_. The former have the right to | walk away, the latter never did (without risking death). | No matter what the antecedent is (CEOs vs. plantation | owners) the subsequent is a false likeness (slave vs. | employee). | bigfudge wrote: | Er no. There are both social and legal norms around | employment. I'm not saying he's breaking any laws here, but | companies are a certain scale aren't just the playthings of | the boss they exist at the convenience and for the benefit | for society at large (ie they are granted the privilege of | being a company). That means there are constraints on | corporate behaviour. | diputsmonro wrote: | No, that's why we have labor laws. Being a billionaire | doesn't make you a king. | | Every company is spending "their own money" to pay | employees. It doesn't matter if there are a thousand | shareholders or just one. There is still a corporate | structure and formal employee relationships. They are | employees, not serfs, and they deserve the respect that | entails. | kibwen wrote: | _> Being a billionaire doesn 't make you a king._ | | https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-employees-reveal- | most-... | | _A former production employee who worked at the company | over 10 years ago said he was surprised by his coworkers | ' attitude toward Musk._ | | _" When he walked by, people would bow down to him," the | former employee said. "That was kind of surprising to | me."_ | mwint wrote: | I've never really wanted to do this before, but I want to | figure out how to place a bet against this story being | true in any meaningful sense. | diputsmonro wrote: | Why is it so hard to believe that Musk may kind of be a | jerk? Why do you have to deflect and find reasons to | throw out evidence, especially when there are piles and | piles of it? | masklinn wrote: | Yes, I'm sure a narcissistic egomaniac would never | condone or encourage such behaviour, and there's no | bootlicker out there who'd do it for brownie points. | Completely unheard of. | gnaritas99 wrote: | bt4u wrote: | knodi123 wrote: | citing some evidence for all the people who are calling you | out and accusing you of making up these claims against him: | | > He calls himself a "nano-manager". | | source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-car-pioneer- | elon-musk-... | | > In conversations with 35 current and former Tesla | employees, CEO Elon Musk is described as a polarizing figure | who inspires but micromanages to an extreme. | | source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/19/tesla-ceo-elon-musk- | extreme-... | | > Elon Musk says remote workers are just pretending to work. | | source: https://fortune.com/2022/07/20/elon-musk-remote-work- | from-ho... | DiggyJohnson wrote: | This is a flaggable comment in my opinion, unless you have | genuine evidence of working closely with Musk. It seems | obviously untrue based on how you wrote it. | kweingar wrote: | HN is full of strong comments like this. A lot worse has | been said about many tech people on here (Larry Ellison | comes to mind). | | Part of the cost of being a public figure and a | multibillionaire is that people will talk about you without | the same collegial tone that they'd use with their peers. | sixstringtheory wrote: | He literally discussed this over text messages that were | publicized as part of the trial discovery. | | Someone else has helpfully transcribed it here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33552970 | | The official document is here, see page 21 for the | transcribed conversation, see plenty of other pages for his | callous thought process: | https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23112929-elon- | musk-t... | | Also, I think a review of this site's guidelines is called | for: | | > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them | instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you | did. | | > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. | GeneralAntilles wrote: | Mind citing that assertion? | kibwen wrote: | https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-praises-chinese-tesla- | factory... | | _During a keynote speech on May 10, Elon Musk commended | Tesla factory workers in China for working under conditions | that break labor laws in many parts of the world -- | including those in China, as The Guardian pointed out. The | high praise from Elon went out to workers who are being | pushed to meet production goals in the middle of pandemic | lockdowns, which have been ongoing at the Gigafactory in | Shanghai since April. The Tesla CEO went on to compare | Chinese workers with their American counterparts, who Musk | says lack work ethic he considers impressive and vital for | EV companies to succeed._ | | _" There's just a lot of super talented and hardworking | people in China that strongly believe in manufacturing. And | they won't just be burning the midnight oil. They'll be | burning the 3am oil. So they won't even leave the factory | type of thing. Whereas in America, people are trying to | avoid going to work at all."_ | | _Going by what Musk says, it sure sounds like what they | say is true: nobody wants to work anymore. That is, except | for workers in China, where conditions enabling Tesla to | meet production goals during lockdowns have less to do with | burning oil past midnight, and more to do with China's | extreme work culture. Meaning Musk isn't really praising | hardworking people so much as a disregard for labor rules._ | | _During the lockdowns, workers at the Gigafactory | reportedly worked 12-hour shifts, six days a week and slept | on the floor. Again, that's not only during recent | lockdowns. This is actually common enough to be nicknamed | "996." That's shorthand for work shifts going from 9am to | 9pm, six days a week._ | greedo wrote: | Jerry Pournelle once wrote that "unregulated capitalism | will eventually end with human meat sold in market | places, and slavery." Seems like Musk and his ultra- | libertarian ilk are heading down that same path. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Wow, a great quote. It left out child labor as well but I | guess you have to keep it concise. | end_of_line wrote: | That's right. We should all go back to the original, | never tried out utopian communism. | knodi123 wrote: | or some sort of middle ground between these two manichean | caricatures? | DiggyJohnson wrote: | I don't see how you can so confidently connect labor | issues in a Gigafactory to his beliefs surrounding the | efficacy of remote work. You still have not addressed | this part of your claim: | | > He's banning remote work because he's an authoritarian | micromanager | | You don't know why he's banning remote work, and you're | guessing that its the most inflammatory reason you can | come up with. You do not know. | sixstringtheory wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33552970 | | from page 21 of | https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23112929-elon- | musk-t... | sunsunsunsun wrote: | The problem with hybrid is you're still bound geographically. | My work insists on being hybrid (my job has no reason for me to | be in the office) and it increases my cost of living by at | least 50%, not to mention I'll never be able to be a home | owner. | DonsDiscountGas wrote: | IMHO the ideal situation would be for people to work in their | own offices, with doors that closed, and short commutes. Easy | to work distraction-free alone, easy to have group meetings and | random chats. | | But real estate costs have made this approach untenable, so | something has to give. | Firmwarrior wrote: | I don't know how much commercial real estate costs, but in | the region around Twitter's HQ it's about $5-$6k for a 1000 | square foot apartment | | Assuming it's the same price per square foot for commercial | space, that's less than $1000 a month for a 100 square foot | office for each employee. Considering these employees are | making more than 20x that, if offices could improve their | productivity, it seems like it'd be well worthwhile | brewdad wrote: | But since the cost of building those offices will be | reflected in this quarter's earnings and destroy some | executive bonuses, while the benefits won't be reflected in | earnings for at least a full quarter and possibly longer, | building individual workspaces is impossible. | ctvo wrote: | > But real estate costs have made this approach untenable, so | something has to give. | | I need a citation here. Big tech was so large and profitable | the last decade that thinking it's real estate costs that led | them to open office spaces and not a flawed ideology re: work | and collaboration. | pseudonym wrote: | I assume the larger portion of what's "untenable" is "short | commutes"; spending multiple hours of unpaid personal time | in a car per day just driving to and from work so that you | can have the place you sleep be affordable is a huge | downside of a lot of in-person jobs that used to be taken | as more of a default pre-pandemic, before so many places | showed "yeah we could let you work from home but we just | don't want to". | | The downsides of an open floor plan can be at least | partially countered by headphones, but there's much less | that you can do on an individual level to make up for | having that much of your personal time locked up in pure | transit. | [deleted] | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | Remote work has changed a lot, but construction in the | places where the big tech companies are headquarters is | highly constrained. It's not like they all could | immediately triple the size of their campuses again. Tech | companies did build large new campuses at enormous cost, | but mostly development crowded out other development. | Everyone is bidding for the same land and labor. | | Reasonably, one company could give everyone an office but | there's no way everyone could do it at once. | FredPret wrote: | Anything more than 0% office implies a huge sea change from 0%. | | To go from zero to one on this, your company now needs to lease | space, even if part-time. Your employees are now bound | geographically. | | At zero, things are dramatically simpler and easier. The only | hard thing is - middle management has nowhere to hide with work | from home. Performance has to be monitored accurately now, | versus the straightforward bums-in-seats-looking-busy-for- | eight-hours method. | cosmiccatnap wrote: | Strangely enough I think this is the first objectively bad | decision he has made since owning Twitter. The others are | questionable for sure but this is a good way to lose your best | engineers to companies that will respect them. | izzydata wrote: | I think blindly firing employees with low code counts is an | objectively bad decision that ignores a lot of nuance and | likely lost a lot of great engineers to companies that will | respect them. | e40 wrote: | The idea that all lines of code are equal (in difficulty) is | so absurd as to (in my memory) have been never discussed on | HN before. Everyone here knows it. How could Elon not? | bitcharmer wrote: | I've heard this before but never backed by any reputable | source. | | Mind sharing where you got that from? | the_doctah wrote: | Is there any evidence that people were fired based on LoC? | fragmede wrote: | https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1588907407002185729 | #... | jrochkind1 wrote: | I actually have no strong opinions about whether remote work must | be allowed or not... but presumably this is going to result in | more people leaving, right? Presumably he knows this, right? | (Maybe he's even counting on it?). | | I guess this is an interesting experiment in how much staff | turnover you can have at a tech company like Twitter and still do | fine. | | I personally would not expect it to go well. Losing everyone who | knows how things work and starting over from scratch with all new | employees in as short a time period as possible, or even doing | your best to approach that asymptote... that can't be a good | idea, can it? | PUSH_AX wrote: | I'm just confused why anyone would still want to work there. | | I don't know what the local markets are like but my priority | would be to jump ship at all costs. | [deleted] | FredPret wrote: | Aka, "please resign en masse" | elorant wrote: | According to the email, Musk expects subscriptions to make up to | 50% of revenue. Assuming that Twitter's revenue is around $5bn, | and the subscription is at $8/month that's some 26M | subscriptions, or 5,7% of its users. I don't think that a number | so high is achievable, unless they pull a rabbit out of their | hat. | datalopers wrote: | You're making the assumption that annualized revenue hasn't | already dropped precipitously due to a loss in advertising | dollars, and the bar for subscriptions to reach 50% is rapidly | lowering. | elorant wrote: | Even if you cut the conversion at half it's still too high. | Realistically speaking, anything above 1% is highly | optimistic. | greedo wrote: | I'm sure he's expecting growth in both ARPU and total users. | fckgw wrote: | How is charging for a website that is currently free going to | increase total users? It makes no sense. | sangnoir wrote: | Another way to achieve Musk's target would be to drop ad | revenue numbers precipitously until it is equal to | subscriptions - a process that may well be under way. | elorant wrote: | Sure, but in this case you'd hardly make any profit. | Interests on that $13bn loan alone are somewhere around $1bn | annually. | bart_spoon wrote: | I'm fairly certain they were making a joke. | vooner wrote: | Born with an emerald spoon in his mouth, it's no surprise that | Musk has no empathy with the common worker. | | On top of his ridiculous level of wealth, he has an absurdly | large ego to go with it, and an army of turd-polishers ready to | laud everything he does. This guy is too big-headed to fail. | philistine wrote: | Let's not mince words, and talk about his real world lived | experience: he treats people like apartheid-era South Africa. | renewiltord wrote: | Ah yes. Little is known about apartheid-era SA but the one | thing we all know is that when you were fired, they paid you | for 2 months and provided healthcare. | seaman1921 wrote: | take people out of their comfy lives for 2 days and they | feel their petty problems are comparable to apartheid-era | SA | renewiltord wrote: | If you think about it, when Nelson Mandela was in Victor | Verster Prison, even they didn't make him pay for a blue | check. | Thorentis wrote: | It's an employers market right now. With 11k laid off from Meta, | and thousands more across tech, Twitter will have no issue | finding staff if it needs them (assuming this decision causes | even more to leave). | | I'm not convinced that Twitter actually needs more than 1k staff | though. 100 infrastructure engineers, 600 platform engineers, and | 300 support staff should be all it takes to run a lean ship doing | what Twitter does. | murphyslab wrote: | > "over the next few days, the absolute top priority is finding | and suspending any verified bots/trolls/spam." | | Is this goodbye to @ElonJet? | | Also, "troll" seems rather nebulous. Is it the end for anyone | seen as a troublemaker? | [deleted] | ssnistfajen wrote: | I don't think the intention is to suspend ElonJet since Musk | has already explicitly said he made the choice to not suspend | it despite the alleged "personal safety risk". Trolls in this | case probably refers to accounts that paid for new Twitter Blue | and are now impersonating well-known figures/entities. | | The wording seems consistent with everything going on at | Twitter so far, that he's just kinda winging it while everyone | else is frozen in confusion over the abrupt changes. A $44B | acquisition is quickly reverting into the volatility of a 2006 | startup. | freejazz wrote: | >"Trolls in this case probably refers to accounts that paid | for new Twitter Blue and are now impersonating well-known | figures/entities." | | Do you mean parody accounts? | ssnistfajen wrote: | Sort of, but only the kind that didn't obey Elon's hastily | drafted "rule" that require clear labeling of parody | accounts. | | Some (hilarious) examples of what I mean can be seen here: | https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1590593334216916992 | | These are amusing to look at, but for Twitter to be taken | seriously long term this can't keep happening. Musk's $8 | Twitter Blue change is what unleashed this chaos in the | first place. | wordsarelies wrote: | Surprise! That's when he last ran a software company. | coffeeblack wrote: | He's running two of the world's most successful software | companies right now. | neaden wrote: | Are you counting Twitter as one of the most successful | software companies? | coffeeblack wrote: | No, Tesla and SpaceX. Plus Neuralink, but Musk isn't | involved in the operations there. | Gud wrote: | There's a lot of software involved in both Tesla and | SpaceX. Much more advanced software then a web app. | notfromhere wrote: | Every company has software. That doesn't mean a car | company operates like a social network | coffeeblack wrote: | No. And Musk already said so. What's the intention of the FUD? | TulliusCicero wrote: | > And Musk already said so. | | You think this matters? Did you not see the whole "comedy is | legal again" followed by banning/suspending people for | parodies? How quickly he went back on "free speech"? | coffeeblack wrote: | How is identity theft or impersonation "comedy"? Are all | the crypto spammers "comedy" for you? Why not stay real and | stop all the hate? | jsbg wrote: | > Is this goodbye to @ElonJet? | | No. [0] | | [0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 | p0pcult wrote: | They should all quit, demonstrate who actually holds the power. | muaytimbo wrote: | I would make them fire me, then file for unemployment. | somecommit wrote: | Do not forget that twitter purchased Vine and shoot it off, just | in order to enable Tiktok taking over. That's not a very smart | company for sure. | randomguy0 wrote: | The one-sidedness of the comments in this thread surprise me. | | If you want to work remotely, don't work at Twitter. | | There's absolutely nothing wrong with Musk thinking it's more | beneficial for his employees to work in the office. He has goals | and methods of working towards them. He wants likeminded people | to work towards those goals. | | Can you really not think of pros and cons of either situation? To | give my opinion, if I ran a business that I was trying to grow or | trying to meet lofty goals, I'd probably have people in the | office too. However, I see upsides to working from home too. | | I've been working remotely since the beginning of COVID and | currently work 2,000 miles away from my work. | aaomidi wrote: | It's fair to critique someone who just upended the lives of all | these people. | ajkjk wrote: | Yeah, but most of the posts here aren't really critique, | they're just sarcastic scorn. We get it, HN, you like remote | work a lot and can't imagine any alternative. | rtp4me wrote: | Agreed. I have been reading HN for a while, and the | overwhelming tone here is definitely "screw the | manager/CIO/CEO" together with "If I have to go into the | office, I will quiet quit, quit without notice, sabotage my | employer", etc. It is truly shocking. | | I feel many on HN simply can't appreciate the great working | conditions the IT industry has compared to other industries | (health care, food service, social services, etc). Getting | paid over $100K a year and crying about going to the | office? Wow, just wow. Imagine how nurses feel getting much | lower pay that are forced to go to work and deal with | sick/unruly people... | Karawebnetwork wrote: | > HN simply can't appreciate the great working conditions | the IT industry has compared to other industries | | These conditions don't happen by accident or by the | goodwill of employers. They happen because people in the | industry have such a hard attitude toward management. | Stop pushing back and all these conditions will suddenly | disappear. | | Your example of nurses is a good one. In some countries | they have excellent conditions. In other countries, they | have very poor conditions. Their impact on society is the | same everywhere, but different historical events have | allowed them to have their current work experience. | rtp4me wrote: | I don't know where you work/worked before, but I've only | had 1 "bad boss" in my +30yr IT career. Even that boss | did not rise to the level of "bad bosses" constantly | criticized here on HN. Most/all of my bosses have been | extremely understanding about work-life balance, family | commitments, teamwork, collaboration, etc. Seems I been | very lucky compared to the vast number of HN comments. | happytoexplain wrote: | I'm reading the same comments, and there seems to be a | reasonable amount of thoughtful writing too. In addition, | there are sarcastic/scornful comments in the other | direction too, yours included ("We get it, HN, you like | remote work a lot and can't imagine any alternative."). Try | not to get focused on individual snarky comments, because | doing that makes those comments a bigger part of the | conversation. | dpkirchner wrote: | I'd wager most of us can imagine alternatives because we | lived alternatives. We've figured out a method that works | better for us and don't want to go back to losing hours a | week for what we expect will have negative value (lower | productivity, happiness, etc). | | Further, this edict is coming from someone that is | presumable working remote now (for at least one company) | and will continue to do so indefinitely. It's only natural | to push back on that. | bink wrote: | It's fine for new management to have new business | philosophies and want to implement them. But the way they are | implemented matters as well. | randomguy0 wrote: | I'm not sure if I'm comfortable judging the "fairness of | critiquing", but it's a business under new ownership. Changes | are going to happen. | mrguyorama wrote: | And it's okay to bitch about "new management" doing harmful | things | ncallaway wrote: | With three hours notice? A policy change that takes place | _that very morning_ delivered at 2am? | | I'm happy to judge the critiques of that as "fair", and the | changes themselves as "irresponsibly implemented". | | Ending remote work? Whatever. I disagree, but it's his | business. | | Ending remote work with 3 hours notice? He's an asshole. | cmeacham98 wrote: | Taking the benefit away from employees currently exercising it | (with zero grace period) is a little different than someone | joining a company knowing they don't do remote work from the | start. | | I'm not saying it makes Elon Musk a bad person (I think he's a | bad person for plenty of other reasons), but I do think it's a | poorly thought out move on his part that will cause some of the | better employees that survived the layoffs to quit. | arrrg wrote: | It is my understanding that Twitter has been extremely friendly | towards remote work. | | Switching that up from one day to the next is just inhuman | cruelty without empathy. I'm not even taking any kind of legal | perspective, just a purely ethical one. The disruption to | employee's lives can be enormous. | | I'm so happy to live in a country where this would be quite | illegal to do. | sixstringtheory wrote: | In an all-else-being-equal world, yes I can see the tradeoffs. | | The problem is that Elon has already destroyed the trust that | should've existed between him and his newfound employees. It | shouldn't be surprising that in such a relationship any | managerial decisions are viewed with extreme skepticism towards | their motivation. | | Not to mention all of the text messages we've already seen that | already explain the motivation behind this move. Those were | just one of the things that destroyed the trust. | dmalvarado wrote: | Must be in office. Must work at least 40 hours per week. | Eliminated days of rest. As if twitter's problems are caused by | "employees not working enough". | ok_dad wrote: | Everytime a new Commanding Officer (CO) showed up when I was in | the Navy we tried to bet which type it was: | | 1) The kind who investigated the goings-on in the ship, | interviewed the officers and chiefs, and learned how the ship was | being run, then made small changes over time to optimize the | operations based on what they learned. Sometimes big changes in | one specific area, if it was required (like fixing the ship's | crypto key material protocols, if they are super fucked up). | | 2) The kind who came in and ran roughshod over the whole ship, | made a bunch of big changes and policy decisions, and generally | acted like they owned the place in order to fulfill a pre- | concieved vision they had of how things should be. | | With 1, we were happy because there are always improvements to an | org, but the best people to know those improvements are those who | know the org. These commanders always resulted in a better | command overall by the end of their tenure, bar none. | | With 2, we were sad, because suddenly mistakes were being made | everywhere in order to try and fit into the "vision", and thus | reduced morale due to the massive changes and the constant | failures. I saw 2 of these and both failed miserably and brought | the command down lower than it should/could have been. One of | those was on a great ship that performed so flawlessly that we | were always sent on the most important assignments, and after I | left I learned the ship fell into disrepair and could no longer | even get underway, due to mismanagement. That guy came in and | basically made me decide to get an early re-assignment and 3 of | my friends on that ship left the Navy completely because of him. | hallway_monitor wrote: | The difference here is the ship is not running smoothly at all | according to the new commander. It is a change in course and I | think it's pretty obvious Elon wants to get rid of the people | who won't be on board with the new plan. This change is one | more opportunity for those dissidents to leave and for those | that stay to build a better team. | bfgoodrich wrote: | eli wrote: | And how's that been going so far? | nxm wrote: | It's been a few short weeks. He had to cut stuff (as others | like Meta are) to ease the cost drain. | | Give Musk a chance... guy knows how to build and grow | companies | jimmaswell wrote: | I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt on this but it | seems like he's acting erratically and reactively, not | inspiring confidence | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Grey check mark lasted less than a day? To me it seems | like he's trying to do it all by himself in an area he | has no expertise. | astrange wrote: | He's ignoring an FTC consent degree and seems to be | running on annoyance that journalists got free bluechecks | from their jobs. | klyrs wrote: | Twitter is not in a "build and grow" phase. This is his | first hostile takeover of a large company with a | saturated market, is it not? | kennend3 wrote: | > Give Musk a chance... guy knows how to build and grow | companies | | Not sure, is there a government bailout or subsidy for | tech companies as he got with Tesla? | | https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk- | subsidies-201... | crtasm wrote: | Fire people then ask some of them to come back? | paulryanrogers wrote: | Considering his reputation (alone, not the feats of those | adjacent) how true is this? | jasonlotito wrote: | > It's been a few short weeks. He had to cut stuff (as | others like Meta are) to ease the cost drain. | | I mean, the massive increase in cost is a result of | Musk's debt purchasing Twitter. | notinfuriated wrote: | Would you mind explaining this a bit further? I'm out of | the loop here and don't know anything about Twitter's | costs before or after Musk's purchase. | klyrs wrote: | He had to take out a giant loan to afford the purchase | (debt financing), which twitter needs to pay about $1B a | year to service. Twitter wasn't getting anywhere near | that in profit. | heyitsguay wrote: | Yeah but at least from the outside, to continue the metaphor, | this seems like a CO taking over a struggling ship and | deciding to just blow up all the ammunition in place. The | ship needs to do something new, and this is something new, | but it seems like it's just sinking faster now. | pajtl wrote: | Wouldn't the new commander always say the ship is not running | smoothly? | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | Wouldn't they know going in what high-command's view of the | ship was? Couldn't they judge the ship and crew against the | others in the fleet? | happymellon wrote: | The only thing that ever happens on these scenarios, are that | the skilled folks who are concerned about losing their jobs | will move and Twitter will be left with the dregs who stay | because they can't get a new job elsewhere. | ethanbond wrote: | Thank goodness COs can operate entire ships by themselves, | otherwise they'd probably need some tact and grace to get the | ship to its destination safely. | masklinn wrote: | > The difference here is the ship is not running smoothly at | all according to the new commander. | | That's not a difference at all, as it would be exactly what | (2) were thinking of their new commands as well. | Ar-Curunir wrote: | Has that approach ever succeeded anywhere? | kadoban wrote: | > The difference here is the ship is not running smoothly at | all according to the new commander | | I mean, if you ask any commanders in group 2, they're going | to all say that. | ok_dad wrote: | Your entire reasoning behind your comment indicates you don't | understand this point I'm making about leadership. You're | talking about a "new plan" as if we all agreed that Twitter | was doing _so badly_ that it needed a 180. You use | "dissidents" and "better team" as if it's a fact that things | are so bad _and_ the team is so inept that Elon could do | nothing but burn the place to the ground and make a phoenix | from the ashes. | | My point was that the organization/ship is more than it's | current head, it's a massive organism and if you make | systemic changes that affect a sick or even healthy organism | massively you tend to just destroy/kill it rather than | improve it. The best way to fix/improve something so large | and supposedly unhealthy as Twitter is by small or medium | steps that are well-thought-out, over time. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | You seem to be basing this on the idea of a ship full of | decent and willing sailors who had a common cause. I'm sure | even those good type-1 captains you mention would still get | rid of malingerers or enemy sympathizers. | | Elon's got activist employees who're trying to bring him | down personally and entire useless product divisions so the | best thing to do is cut out the expensive rot - nothing | ruins morale like having hostile and counterproductive | teammates dragging you down. | | The part of the company takes takes tweets, stores tweets, | and displays tweets seems to be working fairly well. The | rest is on the rocks or was headed for them full steam. | thedorkknight wrote: | >Elon's got activist employees who're trying to bring him | down personally | | Not trying to be confrontational, but whenever I see | comments like this, I think that people really need to | read up on narcissistic personality disorder. The "I'm | being personally attacked" tactic is glaringly apparent. | It's super common in cults too when the cult leader | starts losing control of things (since they commonly have | narcissism as well). People with NPD are completely | incapable of comprehending that they may actually be at | fault in any way and absolutely have to interpret failure | as being due to conspiracies against them | ok_dad wrote: | > I'm sure even those good type-1 captains you mention | would still get rid of malingerers | | No, they'd try and figure out the motivation of the | malignerer, or lack thereof, first. We had one guy who | was a great tech, but then for a few months he showed up | drunk to watch and was lazy. Found out his wife left him | with the kids, to another state. The officer's mess | arranged with some of the enlisted senior crew to invite | the guy to family events every week, dinner and stuff, | and helped him get back that family feeling with the | ship, so he had something to work for. | | > or enemy sympathizers. | | I doubt anyone in the Navy I met was a spy for an enemy. | I also doubt someone at Twitter is rooting for TikTok and | working against Twitter in that direction. | escaper wrote: | God how can I downvote this. Did you even read what the OP | said? So in this case the "dissidents" are people that | appreciate incremental change, like their opinions to be | valued in their respective field of expertise, and possibly | appreciate being able to work from home? | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | >>>>> and generally acted like they owned the place | | this is the $44B problem to your CO analogy. | | Skin in the game. The world runs far better on it. | baxtr wrote: | Nah. He doesn't own twitter like you own a house. People can | just quit and leave. | | In fact a CO might be in better position in that regard. | Soldiers don't quit as fast as devs. | deltree7 wrote: | There will be plenty of devs desperate for work as large | companies cuts a significant portion of the work. | | Bottomline, the last time tech truly saw a recession and | slow-down was in 2001. So, the entire dev cohort has never | seen economic conditions that they are about to face. | | Even high performers at Meta, Coinbase, Netflix will have | to navigate this. | | There are two choices in front of them | | a) work at Twitter and other startups which requires 60+ | hours of work. High workload / High Reward | | or | | b) Join services firm like IBM, TCS and have work-life | balance but do menial tasks with steady but medium pay. | | Elon Musk will have no trouble hiring them. | | Most devs are completely out of touch about the economic | reality. Now they have to work hard like the rest of other | industries. | lovich wrote: | The labor market is still incredibly tight for engineers. | Even these current layoffs have targeted non tech | departments for the majority of their cuts, if they | included engineering at all. Companies still want to | build and there's not enough hands. | | From everyone I'm in contact with it's a terrible time to | be in sales, marketing, or hr, and the engineers are | mostly bitching about no raises this year | deltree7 wrote: | This is an out of touch comment, not understanding the | supply / demand context. | | It's not only about layoffs, but not enough absorbing | capacity for freshly printed Tech graduates the | universities are churning out at the rate expecting | previous level of hiring. | | Most HN guys demanding work-life balance have seen | nothing yet. | | This is a great time for Startups and Startup-like firms | like Twitter to hire and require 60+ hours workload. | There will be fresh graduates from Stanford, MIT, | Berkeley who have no choice but to put pressure on | existing coasters on various companies | tablespoon wrote: | > a) work at Twitter and other startups which requires | 60+ hours of work. High workload / High Reward | | Twitter is not a startup, and my understanding is | startups are only "high reward" if your bet pays off | (e.g. you got in early enough AND the startup was | successful enough). | | > Most devs are completely out of touch about the | economic reality. Now they have to work hard like the | rest of other industries. | | Your a/b binary choice is out of touch in its own way. | deltree7 wrote: | This is exactly what I mean by 99% HN dev cohort | completely out of touch with reality. | | Twitter is absolutely a startup. They are trying to a) | find product market fit with a new vision b) Have | negative cash-flow, so everyone has to workhard to reduce | burn rate. c) Will have new fresh equity issued them with | high upside rewards. d) Will have a liquidity event in a | couple of years (IPO) | | For all practical purpose, Twitter is a startup. | | Musk will issue new equity | tablespoon wrote: | > Twitter is absolutely a startup. They are trying to a) | find product market fit with a new vision b) Have | negative cash-flow, so everyone has to workhard to reduce | burn rate. c) Will have new fresh equity issued them with | high upside rewards. d) Will have a liquidity event in a | couple of years (IPO) | | That sounds like a very idiosyncratic definition of a | "startup" that would match all kinds of poorly performing | companies no one would label a "startup." I think being | new, small, and chasing orders-of-magnitude upside from | that small start are pretty key to the conventional | definition, neither of which apply to Twitter anymore. | ryanbrunner wrote: | There's a third option of joining a small, lean, | bootstrapped company with good work-life balance, which | tend to thrive when the market isn't as frothy. | mikkergp wrote: | > Elon Musk will have no trouble hiring them. | | He just held an all hands where he said he doesn't know | how long a run rate Twitter has, Twitter may lose | billions next year, and bankruptcy isn't out of the | question, so it sounds like it's possible he may have | trouble hiring anyone. | deltree7 wrote: | Yes, just like Tesla, SpaceX, probably NeuraLink. | | That's how he motivates people | mikkergp wrote: | By sending all of his companies into bankruptcy? He | motivated 5 top execs to leave! | deltree7 wrote: | Good Riddance | agrajag wrote: | You can't realistically argue that twitter will have as | easy a time hiring as SpaceX and Tesla. They might have | the same shitty working conditions, but without the risk | of the company going under in a year or two. Plus | everyone already there knew what they were signing up for | when they joined, but at twitter you should expect a | 50-75%+ employee churn over the next year. You don't join | twitter today unless you treat it like a short term | contracting job. | deltree7 wrote: | There is always a fresh supply of extremely bright | engineers from Stanford/MIT/Berkeley and thousands of | universities who will have trouble finding jobs in a | hiring freeze environment and wouldn't mind working for a | startup like Twitter (driven by mission and large upside | with equity if successful). | | Not everyone in this world is a coaster | mikkergp wrote: | See, I've been wondering this, so you think that he's | driving all the advertisers and employees away to start | fresh, with advertisers and employees who are loyal? Do | you think the subscription service will be enough to make | up the lost revenue or, how do you think he'll earn the | billion in interest payments he needs, sell Tesla stock? | AJ007 wrote: | Down votes make me think a lot of HNers are in for a | brutal shock. | Cyph0n wrote: | Remove Twitter from a) and add a third option: c) work at | any company that isn't clearly being run into the ground. | deltree7 wrote: | Can you give me an example of this unicorn company which | isn't facing cash-crunch and burn rate? | Cyph0n wrote: | I can give you many examples of unicorns that weren't | firing people one week after a takeover by a billionaire | who doesn't understand how account verification works. | deltree7 wrote: | Musk was firing useless departments (DEI, Human Rights, | Ethics, Communications) -- Mostly rent-seeking roles that | has no place in startups. | | Musk also fired Engineers who weren't productive in the | past two months. Musk has enough software expertise to | see through people who bullshit and people who know their | shit. | | That's why the best Car Designer, the best rocket | engineer, the best AI expert were all working for | Tesla/SpaceX. | | Is Musk clueless about Social Media? absolutely. | | Do you think he isn't spending every waking second to | figure out the nuances and deliver something amazing in | 2-3 years? | | This is where HN/Reddit/Blind/Media are clueless about | Musk. They look at current state of Musk and mock him | (they mocked him for his rocket dream, his electric car | dream, they mocked his tents) | | True to form and cluelessness, they are currently mocking | his lack of expertise in creator economy and other social | aspects of social media. | | Let's try 2 years from now. Musk is a fast learner and | has always pivoted when data shows him where he is wrong. | | He will make plenty of mistakes and clueless media will | be there to highlight that because there is an audience | of clueless people who are thirsty for Elon Musk | thrashing articles to feel good about themselves. | | At the end of the day, Twitter will be successful, Elon | will be a Trillionaire (from all his ventures) and there | will be salty HN/Redditers who will still be mocking him | in 2030 because he probably would be doing some stupid | thing in some new industry | [deleted] | tthun wrote: | how much skin in the game .. isn't this a leveraged buyout, | with twitter on the hook for the borrowed money .. | s1artibartfast wrote: | He put up about 30B, financed 14B. | | Still a lot of skin. | thedorkknight wrote: | Whether or not they literally own the place is aside from the | posters point about new leaders coming in and automatically | upending everything without taking the time to actually | listen to people and learn what actually is and isn't | working. But yeah, it's an ironic choice of words. | nonameiguess wrote: | Skin in the game? A ship commander might die if something on | the ship goes wrong. | sixstringtheory wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man | | I see you edited your comment from the original: | | > this seems to be a significant problem to your CO analogy. | | So let me ask you... how does a ship's commanding officer | _not_ have more skin in the game? A rich person loses their | second home or yacht when things go south... a person on a | ship can hit the brig or lose their life. | agrajag wrote: | You'd be surprised at how much you can fuck up a ship as a | CO without life-changing consequences. Unless there's gross | negligence a CO is almost certainly not even going to get | discharged even if their actions lead to death of a sailor. | | They'll stop being CO and will never be promoted, but will | finish out their Navy career in a job where they can't hurt | anyone, and will have almost no impact once they retire and | go into civilian life. | | They're not going to do time in the brig unless there's | willful misconduct. | baxtr wrote: | Steve Job's return to Apple was 1) | | Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter is 2) | [deleted] | iwillbenice wrote: | curious_cat_163 wrote: | You are assuming that he is optimizing for employee happiness. | I am not associating a value judgement to whether that is the | right/wrong move in Twitter's context. | | I wish that we, as a culture, stopped harping over what Elon | Musk might do to Twitter next. | | It does not matter. This will take some time to play out. I | hope Twitter employees land on their feet. That is pretty much | the only thing that matters. I don't have a lot of reasons to | think that they won't barring some exceptions. | samus wrote: | I bet a lot of people actually experience Schadenfreude at | seeing these social media empires being toppled. | | The point was not employee happiness, but an attitude that | completely ignores that the employees might know a thing or | two about how to run the place. And plenty of employees are | willing to put up with subpar pay and otherwise boring work | if they feel valued for the stewardship and experience. | ok_dad wrote: | Actual happiness was not the point. In the Navy, the CO | doesn't have to care about employee happiness, anyways, while | Musk sort of does. 'Happiness' was a rhetorical device I used | there. | thordenmark wrote: | A better analogy is Twitter is a sick and dying patient and | drastic measures are needed to be taken to save it. Whether or | not you agree with those measures, well you don't have $44b on | the line. Of all of Elon's businesses, this one is probably the | most in his wheelhouse. He's a web guy after all. | gdubs wrote: | I mean, those $12B annual debt service payments didn't exist | before. Seems clear that Twitter was struggling in many ways, | but things seemed to be accelerating post acquisition. | user_ wrote: | I think it's 1.2B/annum, not 12B. | [deleted] | wefarrell wrote: | He's a web guy in the same way that Rudy Giuliani is an | expert in criminal law. It was true in the 90s but definitely | not anymore. | johannes1234321 wrote: | He is not a web guy, but he is a Twitter power user, thus | sees problems and limitations in the platform. But then: | his usage and experience probably is far from | representative for most users. | Hamuko wrote: | > _A better analogy is Twitter is a sick and dying patient | and drastic measures are needed to be taken to save it._ | | Was it that before Musk actually decided to buy it? Because | as far as I can tell, the ad dollars started dropping after | his announcement. | throwuwu wrote: | Their net profit was all over the place for the last 5 | years including a big net loss during the pandemic. | Cyph0n wrote: | > He's a web guy after all | | Of course he is. | citrined wrote: | patient is dying, better chop off an arm and a leg and remove | some of the monitors and move the patient to a different | building. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Extreme, but sometimes patients need exactly that | luckylion wrote: | Wait, each ship works completely different from the other | ships, there are no established generic procedures, the crew | just figures out how they want to do encryption? | | When you transfer onto another ship, do you need a long | onboarding as well, does each ship have its own culture? How do | they coordinate? | killingtime74 wrote: | Of course there are standards, execution is another story | ok_dad wrote: | > Wait, each ship works completely different from the other | ships, there are no established generic procedures, the crew | just figures out how they want to do encryption? | | There's some commonality, but it's like a fork of other | ships. When a new ship is stood up and built, the pre- | comissioning crew will write the SOPs for the new ship. Most | of the time, you crib it from an old ship and make changes | you think are useful, like a fork. There are some standards | from up high, especially encryption stuff, but things can be | run with some discretion. | | Crypto was probably a bad example, since no decent Navy | crypto tech would deviate from the proper procedures, even in | the face of the CO asking for it. Kinda like how once the CO | asked me to use more ordnance for training than I was | alloted, and I said "no" and he said "yes" and I said "if you | do this, I will put in writing that I told you not to and you | did it anyways and I also won't operate the system to check | out the ordnance, so we'll have an imbalance" and he said | "ok". | | > When you transfer onto another ship, do you need a long | onboarding as well, | | Not long, but a bit, yes. Much like starting a new job. For | some jobs, you shadow the current position holder for a good | while. | | > does each ship have its own culture? | | Yes, undoubtedly. | | > How do they coordinate? | | Generally via SIPRchat, radio, flag signals, etc. | | But seriously, we have some standards for operations that | make the different ships able to inter-operate easily. You | also have groups of ships under commanders who do a bit more | to coalesce those ships into a unit. | thedorkknight wrote: | Military aircraft carriers are going to operate in a manner | completely different from boats carrying skipping containers, | if we're going with this analogy. The number of social media | companies Musk had any experience running prior to buying | Twitter is 0. | edwnj wrote: | Difference is you served (or are serving) during peacetime. | This is wartime.. | | Twitter is in a shit load of trouble and unlike Meta & Snap | which are crashing like a shitcoin.. Elon bought Twitter at | 2x-3x what its actually worth. | | Unlike the past decade, where these companies had easy access | to funny money during a tech bull market.. now we are entering | a uuge recession.. Twitter (or any company for that matter) | which doesn't go into wartime mode is gonna get rekt | ok_dad wrote: | The Navy doesn't differentiate between wartime and peacetime | for training or operations, generally. The difference would | lie in what type of ordnance we used (real during wartime, | inert during peace) and the measures we operated under at sea | (we'd emit less signals and dog the hatches). | | Also, in wartime, it's actually _even more_ important that a | new CO didn 't upset the delicate balance or change | procedures, because you need to rely on your skills and | drills during wartime even more! Changing things just makes | it harder to do your job and during wartime that would be | deadly. | | Also, you don't know where or when I served, so don't make | assumptions. | edwnj wrote: | I meant no disrespect, just an educated guess since there | has been no _major_ war after WWII.. | | I'm mainly talking about the difference in strategy/posture | during wartime vs peacetime.. Just look at whats happening | in Ukraine rn, Russia changing commanders to go full | scorched earth. | | To save a company like Twitter, this is exactly the kind of | thing u need to do. Private equity does this all the time. | [deleted] | thesuitonym wrote: | Ah yes, it's like Sun Tzu said, the best way to wage a war is | to get rid of half your army, and demoralize the other half. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | If half of the army hates you and is trying to make you | lose, yeah. | thedorkknight wrote: | I don't think he got rid of people based on how they felt | about him, but even if he did, surrounding yourself with | yes men is not a good strategy | alxlaz wrote: | Seeing someone who served in the Navy being told that their | peacetime service is very different from the war that Twitter | is currently experiencing is... I'm not even sure how to | react to that. Lots of execs like to stretch those military | metaphors -- they're all in the trenches, all hands on deck, | take no prisoners and all that -- but I think you may have | stretched this one way past its breaking point. | edwnj wrote: | You're twisting my words. Peacetime is different to wartime | is a general statement that has nothing to do with his | service. | | Military metaphors are common in business for a reason. | Modern business management inherited a lot of the military | after WW2. To this day, you'll see people with Special Ops | history consulting businesses (Echelon Front) | bhaak wrote: | > Twitter is in a shit load of trouble and unlike Meta & Snap | which are crashing like a shitcoin.. | | Whatever state Twitter was in before Musk entered with a | white knight syndrome, it was in a better state than it is | now. | | > Elon bought Twitter at 2x-3x what its actually worth. | | Well, that was his first mistake at Twitter before he even | "owned" it. | chson wrote: | _and generally acted like they owned the place_ | | To be fair, he actually does own the place. | usefulcat wrote: | ownership != operational knowledge | samus wrote: | It doesn't seem like he really cares about the place though | sixstringtheory wrote: | I award no points for fairness because that is completely | beside the point. | ok_dad wrote: | True, and to be fair, CO's have "own the place" power most | times (while underway at least). | cerved wrote: | To be fair, he owns _most_ of the place | msmith wrote: | I wonder if you've read Turn the Ship Around [1]? It's one of | my favorite leadership books and tells the true story of the | Navy captain who was put in the awkward position of running a | submarine class that he was not familiar with. | | He adapted to the situation by leaning on the expertise of the | crew in a way that was very different than the normal command- | and-control style of leadership. It sounds like what you | describe in type 1. | | [1] https://davidmarquet.com/turn-the-ship-around-book/ | ok_dad wrote: | Yea, the Navy has basically fostered a shit culture that | turned the leadership into MBA-style bullshit artists today. | Leadership isn't taken seriously, just promotions and | personal gain. Only those who kiss ass can make it in today's | Navy. | | If more leaders like this guy who wrote this book were sent | to the top levels, it would be an improvement. Instead, you | notice he's writing books for a living now. | ramesh31 wrote: | >Yea, the Navy has basically fostered a shit culture that | turned the leadership into MBA-style bullshit artists | today. Leadership isn't taken seriously, just promotions | and personal gain. Only those who kiss ass can make it in | today's Navy. | | This is a disease of all peacetime militaries. The Army | suffers the same problem. They spend an entire career | LARPing in camouflage, and think that somehow means they | know anything at all about warfare or leadership. | agrajag wrote: | A major problem is that life in the Navy sucks too much | compared to the civilian world, so that most of the | competent Naval Officers leave, and you end up with a | pretty small pool of competent leaders. It's a super weird | dynamic where junior officers are on average more competent | than mid-career officers. | | As for why life sucks so much, leadership has let there be | too much to do with too few people, and inflexible systems. | matai_kolila wrote: | FWIW they teach 1 in MBA schools, if MBAs are doing 2 it's | despite their education, not because of it. | | Also most top tier MBA programs are an excuse to get wildly | drunk basically daily and make a bunch of powerful friends, | so it's very possible most people who go don't learn a damn | thing. | ok_dad wrote: | Same with leadership and officers, we definitely got good | training teaching #1, but the actual culture of the fleet | is #2. | | Sorry to rag on MBAs. | gdubs wrote: | When we began looking at farms, the advice we got over and over | again was to live with it through a few seasons before making | any changes. See how the water flows in the winter months, see | what dries out in the summer. Learn what the wildlife get up | to, where the best views are. | | It's something I think about to this day. As we've made | progress restoring and transforming our place, we're constantly | informed by those observations -- and it's really easy to see | how many of the initial ideas would've been premature or | lacking context. | the-printer wrote: | Thanks for this..do you farm-blog by any chance? | cpeterso wrote: | Good advice about the seasons. Sounds like "Chesterton's | Fence": The more modern type of reformer goes | gaily up to [the fence] and says, "I don't see the use of | this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent | type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see | the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go | away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that | you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence | skc wrote: | >Musk expects subscriptions to make up to 50% of revenue | | I've seen a lot of people calculating how many subscriptions | would be required to hit this number as of today, but they're all | forgetting to factor in Apple's and/or Google's cut. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | So, this is just to get rid of more people without having to lay | them off. Coaching out people is not very 2022. Will cost Twitter | more than it is worth for sure. | cr4nberry wrote: | why would anyone want to work for this asshole? It's not like the | employees are well paid compared to other companies. If I wanted | to get fisted, I'd just go to amazon and get a bigger check for | it | boatsie wrote: | Except Amazon is in a hiring freeze. Musk knows now is the time | to make "unreasonable" demands. | kleiba wrote: | _Prior to Musk's arrival, Twitter had established a permanent | work-from-anywhere arrangement for its workers_ | | ...for some definition of the word "permanent". | aeyes wrote: | Did you sign a new contract making your work location "remote"? | If not then it was never going to be permanent. | ghaff wrote: | In the US at least, even if you're categorized as remote, the | company can almost certainly pull you back to an office and | fire you if you won't. It probably wouldn't be considered as | "for cause" (IANAL) but a company can pretty much | unilaterally change work conditions, responsibilities, etc. | so long as no labor laws are violated. | [deleted] | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Updated to "work-from-anywhere in the building" now. With half | of the staff gone you can claim any empty desk or office in | sight, I hear the CISO and chief compliance officer's spots are | open! | bogota wrote: | Really feel bad for anyone who went out and bought a house in | another place or made life decisions based on this policy which | is likely a lot of people. This is really showing that you | don't respect or care about your employees which is par for the | course for musk. However i think what he is forgetting is that | Twitter isn't some amazing challenge to solve like self driving | or rockets. I think you will see a very understaffed twitter in | the future. | Firmwarrior wrote: | Man, that's an interesting point | | I could imagine putting up with a lot of shit from Elon if I | believed I was building a better future for humanity in the | process, but it's hard to see how a social network is | accomplishing that | padjo wrote: | Yep you get away with a lot of shitty leadership and tough | conditions if you can get everyone to buy in to the | mission. Hard to see how you could convince anyone that | twitter is worth fighting for now. | literalAardvark wrote: | Debatable. "The town square for the world" is a lofty enough | goal. | [deleted] | coffeeblack wrote: | Remote work is about the only thing where I very much disagree | with Musk. I get it for engineering physical things. But not for | web software. In that area, remote works much better than in- | office, at least for me. | ben_w wrote: | Ironically, the Tesla robots would (with a VR headset) enable | physical-thing workers to work remotely. | erulabs wrote: | I agree, but I think either full on-site or fully remote are | both _leagues_ better than partially remote. Partially remote | is far worse than either - because now all the in-person | tactics exclude the remote folks, and all the remote work | tactics are an unnecessary burden to the in-office folks. An | all-remote team of heads-down engineers is 99% as good as in- | person, if not better, because now all the communication has | been written down and recorded. | chrisco255 wrote: | Nevermind that in a partial remote scenario, like anywhere | from 20-80% of the staff are wfh on any given day. | elif wrote: | i guess this is one way to deflate the tech bubble | evbogue wrote: | https://archive.ph/CN49N | pdx6 wrote: | This whole thing is SGI syndrome. The tight knit teams that were | either let go or quit Twitter will go and found the next | equivalent Nvidia or Adobe. Elon is making the classic Valley | blunder of trying to make a company something it's not, in this | case x.com. See also AOL, Yahoo!, and Tumber. | | If Elon turns brings Vine back from the dead, I might have to eat | my shoe however. | yummybear wrote: | At this point why would anyone want to stay at twitter? The mood | must be absolutely abysmal. | newaccount2021 wrote: | ajkjk wrote: | Definitely check with Twitter employees before assuming that. | On the one hand yeah, maybe. On the other, if I was depressed | with how off-course my company had gotten, watching someone | come in and clean house / shake things up would be very | exciting. | giantrobot wrote: | Even the biggest Musk fanboy at Twitter isn't immune to the | morale hit from a doubling or trebling of their workload | because their team was cut in half from layoffs. What | consolation is the company "getting back on course" if you've | got to work 70+ hour weeks for the next several months. No | time off, sleeping at your desk, never seeing family, and | certainly no holiday time off. At the end you now work for a | Musk company so your compensation will lag the SV mean. | | I feel bad for anyone in that position that feels _happy_. | That 's just a really sad Stockholm syndrome at that point. | freejazz wrote: | Yes, I cannot wait for the chance to take my own company's | legal liability onto my own shoulders so I can prove how | faithful I am to my new leader!! | teg4n_ wrote: | Unless Musk is giving existing workers a ton of ISOs I don't | see why they should care at all how Twitter does at this | point. A worker being excited about a shakeup entailing | significantly less freedom, and significantly more work, | stress and instability has got to have a bad case of brain | worms. | jeffrallen wrote: | Stock options in a non public company are only as valuable | as the boss decides to make them. | | They do work as toilet paper though. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | Layoffs are always morale-killers. Twitter isn't particularly | special in this regard, and if Twitter found a way to lay off | 50% within 3 days to a _boost of morale to the remaining | workforce_ that would be finally be the one truly innovative | accomplishment its done, lol. | e40 wrote: | The podcast _Hard Fork_ interviewed (with disguised voices) 2 | current twitter employees (both had been there a long time). | The GP is right, it 's a terrible environment. | [deleted] | ajkjk wrote: | Oh yeah, not surprised. I'm just griping that there's a lot | of assuming going on in here and it's worth, like, | checking. | d35007 wrote: | How many are left? /s | reducesuffering wrote: | Blind has a sentiment analysis called 'Pulse' where verified | employees answer survey Q's about their company. Employee | morale has driven off a cliff. | acomjean wrote: | I survived two rounds of layoffs before I jumped ship. The | work environment was just wasn't pleasant after the first | round. | | Actually I can't imagine a scenario where I'd be happy people | got let go. (Even I felt kinda bad when "annoying talk | politics everyday real loud for at least 30 minutes while | everyone is working hard guy" got let go).. | shapefrog wrote: | Over summer, tech companies were offering wheelbarrows full of | cash to potential employees. Love him or hate him, once he | started f'ing around at twitter, why would anyone have stayed? | | Unless you really desperately wanted to be in the presence of | the man himself, and maybe thought he was going to buy you a | horse in exchange for something | bawolff wrote: | Probably it takes more than a week to find a new job and | people like to have the new job in hand before quiting the | old one. | _fat_santa wrote: | It's been 2 weeks since he officially bought it, but | working at twitter (and even as an outsider just reading | the news), you see the writing on the wall. There were tons | of reports of planned layoffs, and the changes that Elon | wanted to see in the company. None of what he is doing is | surprising, least of all to Twitter employees. | mrguyorama wrote: | Companies have always known that employees will put up | with abysmal conditions to some level. The stress, | effort, insecurity, and fear of finding a new job has | always had an extreme value to most people. | pastor_bob wrote: | Layoffs started over the summer. Hiring freezes had been | implemented. | | I'm sure many twitter employees thought he would drag his | feet or the deal would fall through, and they'd have at least | a year+ of time before he comes in. | rdtwo wrote: | Probably because the people getting let go aren't in high | demand anywhere with current tech layoffs | hsuduebc2 wrote: | I love how he from loved one of today's liberals turned out to be | their nemesis. | esalman wrote: | Twitter is going down. The question is whether it will take Musk | down with it. | elorant wrote: | Tesla's stock is down 30% the last couple of months. So my | guess is it probably will. | dusing wrote: | While the rest of tech a d the stock market are way up this | year! | sdze wrote: | I can only hope Elon goes bankrupt. He and his man-child-fans | are the most obnoxious people on this planet. | fundad wrote: | He's been embarrassing himself for a minute already but the | answer isn't definitely no. | | What I realized is he saw contraction in demand at Tesla and | wanted a public pretense to sell some without triggering a | panic. He had all the Tesla projections long before his tweet | about feeling "super bad" about the economy. This deal turned | funny money into feeling like a club promoter. | viraptor wrote: | The real question is, will it last longer than the lettuce | though... https://lettuce.wtf/ | throw__away7391 wrote: | Regardless of the merits of remote/office or what this | announcement would mean at a normal company, it sounds like it | must be pure chaos at Twitter right now. | bmitc wrote: | I'd imagine it's been chaos ever since Musk started this whole | deal months ago. | mirekrusin wrote: | Half the chaos, smart. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-10 23:00 UTC)