> They're not hiring them as janitors or cooks, so isn't that 7,500 number pretty irrelevant? It is good enough estimate, certainly good enough to support the

> They're not hiring them as janitors or cooks, so isn't that 7,500 number pretty irrelevant? It is good enough estimate, certainly good enough to support the "Dozens hired of a >7500 workforce amounting to ~0.5%. Is that alarming?" argument. If you want, make a guess that Twitter has 1% of its headcount as janitors and cooks. Then revise 7,500 to ~7,425. The resulting math will vary about 1%. Peanuts. > If they switch CEOs, we could call it a 0.00013% turnover, but that would also be silly. Facepalm. The comment is unrelated, a strawman, and laughably argued. Take a mulligan and try again?