4 ms·

How does one follow a come-back-to-office police while being simultaniously being locked out from said office? Is this an employer lockout, the employer version

by hef19898 4y ago

How does one follow a come-back-to-office police while being simultaniously being locked out from said office? Is this an employer lockout, the employer version of an employee strike? So many questions! Maybe one of those blue checkmarked Elon's on Twitter can answer! But seriously, how can someone burn down something he just bought for 44 billion so fast and consequently?

mr90210 4y ago
> But seriously, how can someone burn down something he just bought for 44 billion so fast and consequently? The fan boys would say: It’s Elon, he is playing 3D chess and no one is smart enough to understand his end goal.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  Yea, I think I’m still leaning in that direction, although I wouldn’t use those words or go all in on this. One thing that’s interesting about this shakeup is that it’s a very clear statement about where Elon sees value, right? Lazy “rest and vest” engineers? Just go home. Communications department? Get out. Perhaps what Elon wants to say is “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff, and now that the 80% naysayers are gone we’re going to really get shit done”. When I’ve worked for companies approximately the size of Twitter I’ve sure felt the urge to say that. :) Now, the question is, now aligned with “reality” is this reasoning from first principles? No doubt a lot of haters are gonna hate, like crazy. Is it enough to take the whole company down?
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff Every place I've worked that had more than 50 staff, 90% of the productive work was done by 10% of the staff. I mean, I can't document that; it's anecdata. But I think it's a pretty reliable rule-of-thumb guideline. But how do you identify that 10%?
    - enkid 4y ago
      They're the ones that quit when you tell them they have to go hardcore or take a severance package.
      - phpnode 4y ago
        right, because by definition the most talented and productive employees have the best prospects at other employers
        bjornsing 4y ago
        Also true. But there they will face “the hegemony of the 80%” yet again…
      - bjornsing 4y ago
        I’m not so sure about that. I think the chance of running a company without the 80% unproductive naysayers has a very strong appeal to the 10%. Also, in bloated “political” organizations they typically run on 10% of mental capacity anyway, so a “hardcore death match” may not have the same meaning to them.
        hef19898 4y ago
        You will find out how much un-sexy but highly important work was done by those underperforming non-hardcore people. Which is usually quite a lot, including keeping the literal lights on.
        bjornsing 4y ago
        Yea, I don’t want to exclude the possibility of that outcome. If Elon does run this $44 billion social experiment I will watch very carefully though. It will be very interesting indeed. (And my feeling is that a lot of the Elon-hate comes from people who fear that the outcome will be more in line with my expectations than yours.)
        4y ago
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    > * “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff* Tech companies are growth-oriented companies. It doesn't matter if their current set of features "runs"; it's not the end of the story, it's only the beginning. If the current featureset runs perfectly, but there is no R&D progress towards the next set of features to keep up with the competition, keep the current userbase onboard, and solicit the next generations of users: the company is dead.
    - bjornsing 4y ago
      >> * “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff* The full quote read “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff, and now that the 80% naysayers are gone we’re going to really get shit done”. “Get shit done” is essentially what you call R&D progress.
- paxys 4y ago
  This is 100% going to happen. Twitter will crash and burn, and then fanboys will go "This was Elon's plan all along! He hated Twitter, and just wanted to kill it to own the libs. Everything he was doing was an act. What a genius!!"
  - belthesar 4y ago
    I'm not even a sycophant, and I'm starting to wonder this, only because it somehow makes more sense than to pull a Dark Knight Joker and light a pile of money on fire.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - cpeterso 4y ago
    And inevitable victim blaming: "Twitter was doomed. Not even Elon could save it!"
keyle 4y ago
That's also my thought. I cannot believe someone could burn through cash possibly this fast in history. Surely, something to be remembered for...
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  Well, Twitter is not burning through as much cash anymore now that most of the people are gone… Cutting the burn rate is a clear and sensible part of Musk’s strategy. The more he lowers Twitter’s expenses, the more time he gives Twitter to try new things. He’s done a terrible job of executing it, but that part of the business strategy, at least, is sound.
  - absrd 4y ago
    "burning cash" in this context doesn't refer to the literal burn rate, it's more that he's spending a great deal of money without presenting any clear vision or direction for the company
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      I agree that is what is happening, but that’s not what “burning cash” means. Which was the point of my comment.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  Bill Hwang must be throwing a fit now that Musk is beating his high score.
- theamk 4y ago
  This reminds me of Stephen Elop from Nokia and "Burning Platform" memo.. Nokia lost its top smartphone manufacturer (25% of the market) position in about half-year after that. But the timescale involved were much longer.. the Nokia losses happened in months, not in days.
CGamesPlay 4y ago
He's only playing with 22% of his next worth, it's not like this is a "serious problem" for him if the thing drops to 0 value.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  Especially when you consider that he only needs like .01% of his net worth to still be disgustingly rich and never have to work again.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  I wouldn't discard the possibility that Twitter affects his other assets, though. It seems like he's using his other companies' talent and money to try to prop up Twitter (like borrowing engineers from Tesla and committing SpaceX to Twitter ad-spend) and Musk himself is distracted from running his other companies. On top of that, a lot of Tesla's stock price hinges on speculative value instead of current cash flows. If public perception starts to believe that Musk is damaging his brands and mismanaging his companies by spreading himself too thin and commingling profitable businesses with unprofitable ones, his other holdings will become less valuable. I mean, he'll always have food on the table at the end of the day, but there's a good chance he won't have the kind of wealth and influence in the future that you'd need to make a big-balls move like buying a large tech company.

mr90210 4y ago

> But seriously, how can someone burn down something he just bought for 44 billion so fast and consequently? The fan boys would say: It’s Elon, he is playing 3D chess and no one is smart enough to understand his end goal.

bjornsing 4y ago
Yea, I think I’m still leaning in that direction, although I wouldn’t use those words or go all in on this. One thing that’s interesting about this shakeup is that it’s a very clear statement about where Elon sees value, right? Lazy “rest and vest” engineers? Just go home. Communications department? Get out. Perhaps what Elon wants to say is “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff, and now that the 80% naysayers are gone we’re going to really get shit done”. When I’ve worked for companies approximately the size of Twitter I’ve sure felt the urge to say that. :) Now, the question is, now aligned with “reality” is this reasoning from first principles? No doubt a lot of haters are gonna hate, like crazy. Is it enough to take the whole company down?
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff Every place I've worked that had more than 50 staff, 90% of the productive work was done by 10% of the staff. I mean, I can't document that; it's anecdata. But I think it's a pretty reliable rule-of-thumb guideline. But how do you identify that 10%?
  - enkid 4y ago
    They're the ones that quit when you tell them they have to go hardcore or take a severance package.
    - phpnode 4y ago
      right, because by definition the most talented and productive employees have the best prospects at other employers
      - bjornsing 4y ago
        Also true. But there they will face “the hegemony of the 80%” yet again…
    - bjornsing 4y ago
      I’m not so sure about that. I think the chance of running a company without the 80% unproductive naysayers has a very strong appeal to the 10%. Also, in bloated “political” organizations they typically run on 10% of mental capacity anyway, so a “hardcore death match” may not have the same meaning to them.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        You will find out how much un-sexy but highly important work was done by those underperforming non-hardcore people. Which is usually quite a lot, including keeping the literal lights on.
        bjornsing 4y ago
        Yea, I don’t want to exclude the possibility of that outcome. If Elon does run this $44 billion social experiment I will watch very carefully though. It will be very interesting indeed. (And my feeling is that a lot of the Elon-hate comes from people who fear that the outcome will be more in line with my expectations than yours.)
      - 4y ago
- NeverFade 4y ago
  > * “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff* Tech companies are growth-oriented companies. It doesn't matter if their current set of features "runs"; it's not the end of the story, it's only the beginning. If the current featureset runs perfectly, but there is no R&D progress towards the next set of features to keep up with the competition, keep the current userbase onboard, and solicit the next generations of users: the company is dead.
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    >> * “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff* The full quote read “look, this thing runs fine on 20% of the staff, and now that the 80% naysayers are gone we’re going to really get shit done”. “Get shit done” is essentially what you call R&D progress.
paxys 4y ago
This is 100% going to happen. Twitter will crash and burn, and then fanboys will go "This was Elon's plan all along! He hated Twitter, and just wanted to kill it to own the libs. Everything he was doing was an act. What a genius!!"
- belthesar 4y ago
  I'm not even a sycophant, and I'm starting to wonder this, only because it somehow makes more sense than to pull a Dark Knight Joker and light a pile of money on fire.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cpeterso 4y ago
  And inevitable victim blaming: "Twitter was doomed. Not even Elon could save it!"

keyle 4y ago

That's also my thought. I cannot believe someone could burn through cash possibly this fast in history. Surely, something to be remembered for...

snowwrestler 4y ago
Well, Twitter is not burning through as much cash anymore now that most of the people are gone… Cutting the burn rate is a clear and sensible part of Musk’s strategy. The more he lowers Twitter’s expenses, the more time he gives Twitter to try new things. He’s done a terrible job of executing it, but that part of the business strategy, at least, is sound.
- absrd 4y ago
  "burning cash" in this context doesn't refer to the literal burn rate, it's more that he's spending a great deal of money without presenting any clear vision or direction for the company
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    I agree that is what is happening, but that’s not what “burning cash” means. Which was the point of my comment.
actionablefiber 4y ago
Bill Hwang must be throwing a fit now that Musk is beating his high score.
theamk 4y ago
This reminds me of Stephen Elop from Nokia and "Burning Platform" memo.. Nokia lost its top smartphone manufacturer (25% of the market) position in about half-year after that. But the timescale involved were much longer.. the Nokia losses happened in months, not in days.

CGamesPlay 4y ago

He's only playing with 22% of his next worth, it's not like this is a "serious problem" for him if the thing drops to 0 value.

wilsonnb3 4y ago
Especially when you consider that he only needs like .01% of his net worth to still be disgustingly rich and never have to work again.
actionablefiber 4y ago
I wouldn't discard the possibility that Twitter affects his other assets, though. It seems like he's using his other companies' talent and money to try to prop up Twitter (like borrowing engineers from Tesla and committing SpaceX to Twitter ad-spend) and Musk himself is distracted from running his other companies. On top of that, a lot of Tesla's stock price hinges on speculative value instead of current cash flows. If public perception starts to believe that Musk is damaging his brands and mismanaging his companies by spreading himself too thin and commingling profitable businesses with unprofitable ones, his other holdings will become less valuable. I mean, he'll always have food on the table at the end of the day, but there's a good chance he won't have the kind of wealth and influence in the future that you'd need to make a big-balls move like buying a large tech company.