4 ms·

This also means "Twitter could be eclipsed by Square in value". I'm sure they debated hard whether to go for this headline or the other one, and decided to go

This also means "Twitter could be eclipsed by Square in value". I'm sure they debated hard whether to go for this headline or the other one, and decided to go with "Square could pass twitter in value" because it would generate more page view. My point is, it's Twitter that's doing bad. I don't understand why he doesn't just give up his CEO role and let someone else more dedicated take over. It may make sense if the problem Twitter is facing can be solved by some creative vision, but it can't. These problems are ones that require a lot of care and effort and no matter how he spins it, he's pouring half the effort he can pour into Twitter.

GuiA 9y ago
Honestly I’m not surprised that Twitter is doing so poorly. I’ve been around Twitter and ex-Twitter folks a fair amount, and they all seem to take it eaaaaasyyyyyy. Things I’ve seen again and again include frequent sabbaticals, several months of time off a year, short days, 3 day workweek arrangements... and these are often combined. To be clear, most of them come across as sharp. But it seems like a very lax, unfocused work environment, and knowing these things I’m not surprised that their only meaningful product changes happen once or twice a year and are minor tweaks and features (round profile pictures! hearts instead of stars!) If I were looking for a job to just go hang out and get good benefits and pay, Twitter would be on top of my list.
- lstyls 9y ago
  Wut. Time off does not correlate to dev quality. I, and many others, do their best work outside of the normal parameters. It sounds like you think if Twitter engineers worked harder Twitter would be doing better. Besides your anecdotal observation about laid back engineers, is it not plausable that the company doesn't have a vision that contributes to monster growth?
  - burnte 9y ago
    It certainly does have a level of correlation. The less time you spend "at work" (for whatever definition you care, including work from home/the moon) the less work you get done. Now, no, that doesn't translate to a perfect linear growth rate where working 20 hours a day is twice as good as 10 hours a day, there is a limit you can push people. People need vacation and time away. However, it's a rock star who can be as/more productive in three days a week than a similar guy working 5 days a week most weeks. I'll even grant some people can cram for three days a week and be as productive as a 5d/8h guy, but in the end you still need to put in the hours. Note, this comment doesn't allow for absurd comparisons such as "Forrest Gump coding 8 days a week will never match Donald Knuth coding 1 hour a month" or whatever. Ass comparisons should use reasonable definitions.
    - lstyls 9y ago
      Not sure what an "ass comparison" is. I didn't argue that there isn't a correlation (never used that word) but correlation != causation. In case it's not clear, I really doubt that Twitter being an also ran has to do with a culture of laziness. If anything my impression was that they overengineered without making any real product changes.
    - lmm 9y ago
      I think the breakeven point is much earlier than you suggest. I'd guess something like 28 hours/week is peak productivity; more than that and you're spending more effort on looking productive and being in the office and getting less done.
  - guiambros 9y ago
    > Besides your anecdotal observation about laid back engineers, ... Who said "engineers"?
- SirensOfTitan 9y ago
  Using anecdote against unsubstantiated claims on productivity to support a post hoc conclusion (Twitter is doing poorly right now) feels like a poor strategy to me.
  - faceyspacey 9y ago
    Still, sounds about right

GuiA 9y ago

Honestly I’m not surprised that Twitter is doing so poorly. I’ve been around Twitter and ex-Twitter folks a fair amount, and they all seem to take it eaaaaasyyyyyy. Things I’ve seen again and again include frequent sabbaticals, several months of time off a year, short days, 3 day workweek arrangements... and these are often combined. To be clear, most of them come across as sharp. But it seems like a very lax, unfocused work environment, and knowing these things I’m not surprised that their only meaningful product changes happen once or twice a year and are minor tweaks and features (round profile pictures! hearts instead of stars!) If I were looking for a job to just go hang out and get good benefits and pay, Twitter would be on top of my list.

lstyls 9y ago
Wut. Time off does not correlate to dev quality. I, and many others, do their best work outside of the normal parameters. It sounds like you think if Twitter engineers worked harder Twitter would be doing better. Besides your anecdotal observation about laid back engineers, is it not plausable that the company doesn't have a vision that contributes to monster growth?
- burnte 9y ago
  It certainly does have a level of correlation. The less time you spend "at work" (for whatever definition you care, including work from home/the moon) the less work you get done. Now, no, that doesn't translate to a perfect linear growth rate where working 20 hours a day is twice as good as 10 hours a day, there is a limit you can push people. People need vacation and time away. However, it's a rock star who can be as/more productive in three days a week than a similar guy working 5 days a week most weeks. I'll even grant some people can cram for three days a week and be as productive as a 5d/8h guy, but in the end you still need to put in the hours. Note, this comment doesn't allow for absurd comparisons such as "Forrest Gump coding 8 days a week will never match Donald Knuth coding 1 hour a month" or whatever. Ass comparisons should use reasonable definitions.
  - lstyls 9y ago
    Not sure what an "ass comparison" is. I didn't argue that there isn't a correlation (never used that word) but correlation != causation. In case it's not clear, I really doubt that Twitter being an also ran has to do with a culture of laziness. If anything my impression was that they overengineered without making any real product changes.
  - lmm 9y ago
    I think the breakeven point is much earlier than you suggest. I'd guess something like 28 hours/week is peak productivity; more than that and you're spending more effort on looking productive and being in the office and getting less done.
- guiambros 9y ago
  > Besides your anecdotal observation about laid back engineers, ... Who said "engineers"?
SirensOfTitan 9y ago
Using anecdote against unsubstantiated claims on productivity to support a post hoc conclusion (Twitter is doing poorly right now) feels like a poor strategy to me.
- faceyspacey 9y ago
  Still, sounds about right