4 ms·

Yes, absolutely. I have two kids under five at the moment, so the long hours in office requirement might not currently work. But I'd consider taking an engineer

Yes, absolutely. I have two kids under five at the moment, so the long hours in office requirement might not currently work. But I'd consider taking an engineering IC role in future. Elon is a wartime CEO. Tim Cook is probably the best peacetime CEO active. Working for either would be an extremely interesting experience.

joshuahutt 4y ago
Well said.
drogus 4y ago
Even after reports of him firing people who disagree with him? I would hate to work for someone with such a big ego. Short way to have a team of bootlickers and opportunists.
divided 4y ago
I respect your choice and to each their own, but to characterize Elon as a wartime CEO when he’s caused 80% of the crisis is a very generous characterization. His “leadership” thus far has been sporadic, ill thought out, and reckless.
- srfvtgb 4y ago
  Elon is a wartime CEO in the same way that Putin is a wartime president.
- lr4444lr 4y ago
  I dunno where you come up with that number. Twitter was in real straits with investors compared with other companies in its class well before Musk was even on its radar. Two activist shareholder coups later and ousting of Dorsey, lackluster profits in good times, plenty of its own culture war scandals despite people piling on FB... can't pin that on Musk.
  - divided 4y ago
    The peer comment to mine by dragontamer sums it up better than I could. I’m not saying problems didn’t exist before Elon, but Musk has been a net negative for the company who thus far has only managed to make a bad situation worse.
dragontamer 4y ago
Twitter's problems were caused by Elon though. Elon structured the deal (or at least signed the deal) such that Twitter is $13 Billion in debt upon signing, and therefore losing an estimated 4-million a day because of it. Elon did not have to structure the deal like this. Elon did not have to push for the unsustainable $44 Billion buyout price like this. Heck, I'm pretty sure that Elon has enough money to buy out the $13 Billion debt (which is only worth $9 or maybe $8 Billion now on the open market) and solve this problem right now. ------ But instead, Elon _chooses_ to fire half the staff at Twitter. Elon _CHOOSES_ to get into public arguments with his engineers (and fires them afterwards). Etc. etc. This calamity is a series of unforced errors. If the debt is too much of a burden, buy out the debt (or don't get into the debt to begin with). Its really not that hard of a problem. -------- I've posted elsewhere on this. But the gist is, Elon took Twitter, a company losing $200 million/year, and instantly turned it into a company that was losing $1500 million/year. (And that's not counting the advertising exodus, which has been estimated at another $600 million of revenue lost due to Elon's poor decisions). Of course he's in panic mode right now, that's a lot of losses. But Elon _caused_ all of this, with his crappy leadership.

joshuahutt 4y ago

Well said.

drogus 4y ago

Even after reports of him firing people who disagree with him? I would hate to work for someone with such a big ego. Short way to have a team of bootlickers and opportunists.

divided 4y ago

I respect your choice and to each their own, but to characterize Elon as a wartime CEO when he’s caused 80% of the crisis is a very generous characterization. His “leadership” thus far has been sporadic, ill thought out, and reckless.

srfvtgb 4y ago
Elon is a wartime CEO in the same way that Putin is a wartime president.
lr4444lr 4y ago
I dunno where you come up with that number. Twitter was in real straits with investors compared with other companies in its class well before Musk was even on its radar. Two activist shareholder coups later and ousting of Dorsey, lackluster profits in good times, plenty of its own culture war scandals despite people piling on FB... can't pin that on Musk.
- divided 4y ago
  The peer comment to mine by dragontamer sums it up better than I could. I’m not saying problems didn’t exist before Elon, but Musk has been a net negative for the company who thus far has only managed to make a bad situation worse.

dragontamer 4y ago

Twitter's problems were caused by Elon though. Elon structured the deal (or at least signed the deal) such that Twitter is $13 Billion in debt upon signing, and therefore losing an estimated 4-million a day because of it. Elon did not have to structure the deal like this. Elon did not have to push for the unsustainable $44 Billion buyout price like this. Heck, I'm pretty sure that Elon has enough money to buy out the $13 Billion debt (which is only worth $9 or maybe $8 Billion now on the open market) and solve this problem right now. ------ But instead, Elon _chooses_ to fire half the staff at Twitter. Elon _CHOOSES_ to get into public arguments with his engineers (and fires them afterwards). Etc. etc. This calamity is a series of unforced errors. If the debt is too much of a burden, buy out the debt (or don't get into the debt to begin with). Its really not that hard of a problem. -------- I've posted elsewhere on this. But the gist is, Elon took Twitter, a company losing $200 million/year, and instantly turned it into a company that was losing $1500 million/year. (And that's not counting the advertising exodus, which has been estimated at another $600 million of revenue lost due to Elon's poor decisions). Of course he's in panic mode right now, that's a lot of losses. But Elon _caused_ all of this, with his crappy leadership.