3 ms·
(I am not responding to the "25%" part as I did not use a percent myself, but am responding to the second, stricter, statement.) Elsewhere in this thread, peop
by saurik 4y ago
(I am not responding to the "25%" part as I did not use a percent myself, but am responding to the second, stricter, statement.)
Elsewhere in this thread, people are discussing a potentially-credible (but maybe you disagree) report on this from Gergely Orosz that does not paint this as "only the 3 senior executives".
https://twitter.com/gergelyorosz/status/1587042365084209153 https://twitter.com/gergelyorosz/status/1587042365084209153
> I talked with an engineering manager who was at Twitter for 5+ years, and got laid off on Sunday "for cause". They were too exhausted from working over the weekend to talk longer: they first need to sleep.
- eqbridges 4y agoYou're missing my point. There's no use in trying to debate whether or not any one person is being fired "for cause" or not...frankly I could care less whether the one item of hearsay you point at is credible or not. What I'm trying to wade through is the vast oceans of nonsense being fielded in the media and in comments that do not add anything to the story and are just trying to prop up one side or another. There's an ocean of difference between one item of hearsay that you point out (hell, maybe that one EM was due to be fired "for cause" who knows? do you? I sure don't!), and 25% of the workforce being fired "for cause", and 4 executives (not 3 as you point out).
- lupire 4y ago> laid off "for cause" This is an oxymoron, so either the tweeter or the manager have no idea what he is talking about.