3 ms·
> So there's two options right There are far more possibilities than those two. Here's just one off the top of my head (I assign no probabilities here, just po
by next_xibalba 4y ago
> So there's two options right
There are far more possibilities than those two. Here's just one off the top of my head (I assign no probabilities here, just pointing out this false binary): This person is being fired as a result of some investigation or process that began prior to the acquisition process and whose results have only just been reached. There are a whole range of process driving, "my hands are tied" scenarios that could explain this.
- twic 4y agoAnother would be that this person was doing something that could derail the deal (deliberately or not), and the CEO felt the best thing to do was to protect the deal by firing him. Given that he's on paternity leave, and "Parag asked me to leave after letting me know that he wants to take the team in a different direction", that doesn't seem likely.
- fooey 4y agoThey could have ignaled that they're not willing to work for Musk, so they're being shown the door ahead of time to minimize turmoil later on.
- Macha 4y agoAlthough if you were fired after being investigated and the company is keeping it quiet, then surely going with the standard "spend some time with the family excuse" and keeping it quiet rather than drawing attention to that fact would be basic self preservation.
- lkxijlewlf 4y agoAnother possibility is the interim person lobbied hard to have the job and made some rather convincing arguments.
- sounds 4y agoThere's more to this than just today's events supporting your theory that the wheels were in motion before Elon's bid - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/21/technology/twitter-security-team.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/21/technology/twitter-securi...