5 ms·
> Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. Rapidly-growing tech behemoths like Google can afford to acquihire hundred of engine
by heydenberk 10y ago
> Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs.
Rapidly-growing tech behemoths like Google can afford to acquihire hundred of engineers and, eventually, assign them to other work.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoMaybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.
- ryandrake 10y agoWhat other work? Is there a company out there that actually has 3,000 employees-worth of work to get done, but nobody to do it? I thought we were in general facing the opposite problem: Lots of bodies but not enough work, leading to under-employment.
- tiglionabbit 10y agoIt depends how fussy employers are about their employees. Employers are always saying there is a talent shortage.
- revelation 10y agoYou would think that, but honestly the site is broken more often than not for me. Right this very moment all pic.twitter links are just redirecting to "https//" URLs. And that's in an incognito tab.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoOne of the best ways to resolve issues in a project is simplifying. You don't need so many if you are going to simplify. Though, anecdotally, I haven't had any issues with the site or service for a few years now. So I can't imagine they have many production issues that affect all the users.
- chetanahuja 10y agoI haven't done a formal study but their t.co url shortener (which is forced on anyone who posts any url) is often broken or extremely slow. Twitter seems like a company where hardcore systems engineers probably take a backseat to "visionary product managers"
- brian-armstrong 10y agoMany of those employees will be on the ad platform. Google already has a good ad platform...