Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He's finished, finished! lol. You saps don't realize the choreographed astroturfed pushback is from the Silicon Valley machine which is full of freeloading deadweight who don't want their a**es to be next on the employment line. How could you not watch those viral TikToks of worthless sorority girls bragging about doing LITERALLY nothing all day at their "tech job" and realize the entire industry was full of dead weight?

Everyone’s on Twitter because they want to be there at the moment the lights inevitably go out. You get that, right? Please tell me you don’t think that “oops we fired the people who control access so we had to lock everyone out of the building” is some form of 3D chess.

Do you think websites only "stay up" because a webmaster is peddling a bicycle? You think DCUM's owner and his wife take turns peddling a bicycle 24 hours a day?

Like…what? You think a platform like Twitter doesn’t need people to run it?

Maybe <10% of the aces at twitter did any real work. Elon sought out those whales who do all the work, then culled the deadweight. Now the whales get to help decide the few who get to come back. I mean seriously, do you think all of those viral worthless idiot sorority girls who were posting tiktoks about drinking smoothies and doing yoga at their "tech jobs" are necessary? It was pointless bloat x1000s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He's finished, finished! lol. You saps don't realize the choreographed astroturfed pushback is from the Silicon Valley machine which is full of freeloading deadweight who don't want their a**es to be next on the employment line. How could you not watch those viral TikToks of worthless sorority girls bragging about doing LITERALLY nothing all day at their "tech job" and realize the entire industry was full of dead weight?

Everyone’s on Twitter because they want to be there at the moment the lights inevitably go out. You get that, right? Please tell me you don’t think that “oops we fired the people who control access so we had to lock everyone out of the building” is some form of 3D chess.

Do you think websites only "stay up" because a webmaster is peddling a bicycle? You think DCUM's owner and his wife take turns peddling a bicycle 24 hours a day?

Like…what? You think a platform like Twitter doesn’t need people to run it?

Like twitter, the owner of DCUM on record says most of his work is automated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He's finished, finished! lol. You saps don't realize the choreographed astroturfed pushback is from the Silicon Valley machine which is full of freeloading deadweight who don't want their a**es to be next on the employment line. How could you not watch those viral TikToks of worthless sorority girls bragging about doing LITERALLY nothing all day at their "tech job" and realize the entire industry was full of dead weight?

Everyone’s on Twitter because they want to be there at the moment the lights inevitably go out. You get that, right? Please tell me you don’t think that “oops we fired the people who control access so we had to lock everyone out of the building” is some form of 3D chess.

Do you think websites only "stay up" because a webmaster is peddling a bicycle? You think DCUM's owner and his wife take turns peddling a bicycle 24 hours a day?

Like…what? You think a platform like Twitter doesn’t need people to run it?

Maybe <10% of the aces at twitter did any real work. Elon sought out those whales who do all the work, then culled the deadweight. Now the whales get to help decide the few who get to come back. I mean seriously, do you think all of those viral worthless idiot sorority girls who were posting tiktoks about drinking smoothies and doing yoga at their "tech jobs" are necessary? It was pointless bloat x1000s.

You've got it backwards. Musk fired all the whales (who are paid the most and do all the work) and fired them first. Then the rest of them, the rest of the ones who do the work, all left. All that's left are the lowest paid least productive employees who don't do the work.

[Anonymous]

The problem isn't that there is a reduction in workforce. The problem is how he went about it. There was no identification of roles that can be eliminated, so that it can be done in a systematic way. HR and compliance people aren't writing code, but those people essential to the functioning of a company.

Let's say that they did due diligence, when they cut the initial workforce, and what they're left with is people they wanted to stay (that's the point, right?). Now they were given an ultimatum, and bunch of the remaining people, the ones they identified as 'keepers' also left. So, who is going to do the job of these people?

Now, look at it from the perspective of the employee. Every day you log into work is a fire drill, and your new boss expects you to work 16 hour days to fulfil his vision, with no promises of anything tangible. IF you are someone with marketable skills, would you stay? And if you're someone without marketable skills, aren't those the very people Twitter wants gone?

At the end of the day, how he's doing this, is nearsighted. It shows leadership that is incompetent at best, and injecting so much volatility is going to cost you clients. Now, revenue is down, and you're stuck with people without marketable skills. AND you have a fairly substantial debt that needs to be serviced. You're MUCH worse off than you were, when you had a relatively stable platform run by a bloated workforce.

[Anonymous]

The app is already acting super buggy today.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that there is a reduction in workforce. The problem is how he went about it. There was no identification of roles that can be eliminated, so that it can be done in a systematic way. HR and compliance people aren't writing code, but those people essential to the functioning of a company.

Let's say that they did due diligence, when they cut the initial workforce, and what they're left with is people they wanted to stay (that's the point, right?). Now they were given an ultimatum, and bunch of the remaining people, the ones they identified as 'keepers' also left. So, who is going to do the job of these people?

Now, look at it from the perspective of the employee. Every day you log into work is a fire drill, and your new boss expects you to work 16 hour days to fulfil his vision, with no promises of anything tangible. IF you are someone with marketable skills, would you stay? And if you're someone without marketable skills, aren't those the very people Twitter wants gone?

At the end of the day, how he's doing this, is nearsighted. It shows leadership that is incompetent at best, and injecting so much volatility is going to cost you clients. Now, revenue is down, and you're stuck with people without marketable skills. AND you have a fairly substantial debt that needs to be serviced. You're MUCH worse off than you were, when you had a relatively stable platform run by a bloated workforce.

What exactly was bloated about the workforce? What was the problem?

The big problem was that Musk said something dumb about buying the company and then the board did something dumb by letting/making it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Hey fanboi 👋

Sorry, as many times as you post this, the core workers keeping Twitter up and running were not sorority girls talking about yoga on TikTok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that there is a reduction in workforce. The problem is how he went about it. There was no identification of roles that can be eliminated, so that it can be done in a systematic way. HR and compliance people aren't writing code, but those people essential to the functioning of a company.

Let's say that they did due diligence, when they cut the initial workforce, and what they're left with is people they wanted to stay (that's the point, right?). Now they were given an ultimatum, and bunch of the remaining people, the ones they identified as 'keepers' also left. So, who is going to do the job of these people?

Now, look at it from the perspective of the employee. Every day you log into work is a fire drill, and your new boss expects you to work 16 hour days to fulfil his vision, with no promises of anything tangible. IF you are someone with marketable skills, would you stay? And if you're someone without marketable skills, aren't those the very people Twitter wants gone?

At the end of the day, how he's doing this, is nearsighted. It shows leadership that is incompetent at best, and injecting so much volatility is going to cost you clients. Now, revenue is down, and you're stuck with people without marketable skills. AND you have a fairly substantial debt that needs to be serviced. You're MUCH worse off than you were, when you had a relatively stable platform run by a bloated workforce.

What exactly was bloated about the workforce? What was the problem?

The big problem was that Musk said something dumb about buying the company and then the board did something dumb by letting/making it happen.

I don't know if there was a bloated workforce. I was saying that even if there was a bloated workforce, culling it in a systematic way is better than walking in and just firing at random. However, there is some reason to believe that the workforce is in fact, bloated. YouTube, for instance, has 2000 employees, and has 4x the revenue. Did Twitter really need 4x the employees as YouTube?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He's finished, finished! lol. You saps don't realize the choreographed astroturfed pushback is from the Silicon Valley machine which is full of freeloading deadweight who don't want their a**es to be next on the employment line. How could you not watch those viral TikToks of worthless sorority girls bragging about doing LITERALLY nothing all day at their "tech job" and realize the entire industry was full of dead weight?

Everyone’s on Twitter because they want to be there at the moment the lights inevitably go out. You get that, right? Please tell me you don’t think that “oops we fired the people who control access so we had to lock everyone out of the building” is some form of 3D chess.

Do you think websites only "stay up" because a webmaster is peddling a bicycle? You think DCUM's owner and his wife take turns peddling a bicycle 24 hours a day?

Like…what? You think a platform like Twitter doesn’t need people to run it?

Maybe <10% of the aces at twitter did any real work. Elon sought out those whales who do all the work, then culled the deadweight. Now the whales get to help decide the few who get to come back. I mean seriously, do you think all of those viral worthless idiot sorority girls who were posting tiktoks about drinking smoothies and doing yoga at their "tech jobs" are necessary? It was pointless bloat x1000s.

That only works if the whales don't leave. The choices where three months severance plus a job at a competitor or staying with longer hours and fewer perks to work for a private company that is hemorrhaging money (not great if you expect to be compensated with equity). It appears that many of the whales have left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that there is a reduction in workforce. The problem is how he went about it. There was no identification of roles that can be eliminated, so that it can be done in a systematic way. HR and compliance people aren't writing code, but those people essential to the functioning of a company.

Let's say that they did due diligence, when they cut the initial workforce, and what they're left with is people they wanted to stay (that's the point, right?). Now they were given an ultimatum, and bunch of the remaining people, the ones they identified as 'keepers' also left. So, who is going to do the job of these people?

Now, look at it from the perspective of the employee. Every day you log into work is a fire drill, and your new boss expects you to work 16 hour days to fulfil his vision, with no promises of anything tangible. IF you are someone with marketable skills, would you stay? And if you're someone without marketable skills, aren't those the very people Twitter wants gone?

At the end of the day, how he's doing this, is nearsighted. It shows leadership that is incompetent at best, and injecting so much volatility is going to cost you clients. Now, revenue is down, and you're stuck with people without marketable skills. AND you have a fairly substantial debt that needs to be serviced. You're MUCH worse off than you were, when you had a relatively stable platform run by a bloated workforce.

What exactly was bloated about the workforce? What was the problem?

The big problem was that Musk said something dumb about buying the company and then the board did something dumb by letting/making it happen.

I don't know if there was a bloated workforce. I was saying that even if there was a bloated workforce, culling it in a systematic way is better than walking in and just firing at random. However, there is some reason to believe that the workforce is in fact, bloated. YouTube, for instance, has 2000 employees, and has 4x the revenue. Did Twitter really need 4x the employees as YouTube?

The work force was absolutely bloated, but when you crack down on the reasons that the people who are necessary like working there and then offer everyone a great severance package, bloated turns into a bunch of people without better options real quick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that there is a reduction in workforce. The problem is how he went about it. There was no identification of roles that can be eliminated, so that it can be done in a systematic way. HR and compliance people aren't writing code, but those people essential to the functioning of a company.

Let's say that they did due diligence, when they cut the initial workforce, and what they're left with is people they wanted to stay (that's the point, right?). Now they were given an ultimatum, and bunch of the remaining people, the ones they identified as 'keepers' also left. So, who is going to do the job of these people?

Now, look at it from the perspective of the employee. Every day you log into work is a fire drill, and your new boss expects you to work 16 hour days to fulfil his vision, with no promises of anything tangible. IF you are someone with marketable skills, would you stay? And if you're someone without marketable skills, aren't those the very people Twitter wants gone?

At the end of the day, how he's doing this, is nearsighted. It shows leadership that is incompetent at best, and injecting so much volatility is going to cost you clients. Now, revenue is down, and you're stuck with people without marketable skills. AND you have a fairly substantial debt that needs to be serviced. You're MUCH worse off than you were, when you had a relatively stable platform run by a bloated workforce.

What exactly was bloated about the workforce? What was the problem?

The big problem was that Musk said something dumb about buying the company and then the board did something dumb by letting/making it happen.

What the board did was very smart for the shareholders since Musk’s offer was like three times what the company was worth. It was just very dumb for the actual company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that there is a reduction in workforce. The problem is how he went about it. There was no identification of roles that can be eliminated, so that it can be done in a systematic way. HR and compliance people aren't writing code, but those people essential to the functioning of a company.

Let's say that they did due diligence, when they cut the initial workforce, and what they're left with is people they wanted to stay (that's the point, right?). Now they were given an ultimatum, and bunch of the remaining people, the ones they identified as 'keepers' also left. So, who is going to do the job of these people?

Now, look at it from the perspective of the employee. Every day you log into work is a fire drill, and your new boss expects you to work 16 hour days to fulfil his vision, with no promises of anything tangible. IF you are someone with marketable skills, would you stay? And if you're someone without marketable skills, aren't those the very people Twitter wants gone?

At the end of the day, how he's doing this, is nearsighted. It shows leadership that is incompetent at best, and injecting so much volatility is going to cost you clients. Now, revenue is down, and you're stuck with people without marketable skills. AND you have a fairly substantial debt that needs to be serviced. You're MUCH worse off than you were, when you had a relatively stable platform run by a bloated workforce.

What exactly was bloated about the workforce? What was the problem?

The big problem was that Musk said something dumb about buying the company and then the board did something dumb by letting/making it happen.

I don't know if there was a bloated workforce. I was saying that even if there was a bloated workforce, culling it in a systematic way is better than walking in and just firing at random. However, there is some reason to believe that the workforce is in fact, bloated. YouTube, for instance, has 2000 employees, and has 4x the revenue. Did Twitter really need 4x the employees as YouTube?

It was likely bloated. But to your point, you don't run into the building throwing grenades into every department. For example, the rumor is that there is no accounting/payroll staff left. Who is going to pay the bills? There's nobody left to even point a temp contractor in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Totally this. Elon will run for Presidency very soon and GOP will eat his sh!t up.

He can’t. Not a natural born citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hey fanboi 👋

Sorry, as many times as you post this, the core workers keeping Twitter up and running were not sorority girls talking about yoga on TikTok.

Also, while that one video was dumb, it didn’t say she didn’t work, plus she also worked for Facebook.