4 ms·

But why does it add up to 7000 headcount rather than 3500 headcount or 14000 headcount?

by SilasX 4y ago

jasonlotito 4y ago
Moderation, customer support, sales, and then everyone to support all those people. You don't think that matters, but it has a real impact on your bottom line. Companies are stopping advertising now, not because Musk took over, but because they can't support for advertising (probably because they were sacked). It was one of the worlds largest social media platforms! Couple that with the reality that Twitter needs at LEAST twice as many people to function than it currently has, even after Musk sent everyone packing. How do I know this? Because the remaining people need to work at least twice as much to make up for the people that left. And this of course ignores all the things that have failed since he took over. The current people are NOT keeping Twitter at 100%. It's already failing.
- SilasX 4y ago
  > You don't think that matters, I didn’t express an opinion on that, and actually believe the opposite of what you just hastily attributed to me. My point is that, when gauging whether 7000 is a reasonable figure, it’s not enough to vomit a laundry list of work that the company needs to do — because that kind of argument would apply equally well to justifying 3500, 7000, 14000, or a million. To justify a specific figure, you need more rigor than hand waving about general work categories. The parent didn’t.
  - vkou 4y ago
    The parent poster, as an outsider, only makes informed, but speculative guesses about Twitter's business footprint, as does ~anyone who does not have T9 vision of the firm. I am not going to tell you that their right size is 3500, or 1500, or 7000, or 14000, because I don't know what it is. But I will say that it's very likely to be measured in the thousands. [1] [1] Although you can always try to shrink the business... A Twitter that doesn't work, and has no revenue could probably be ran by ~0 employees.
  - jasonlotito 4y ago
    > I didn’t express an opinion on that, Don't be pedantic. It's worthless. > My point is that, when gauging whether 7000 is a reasonable figure Evidence shows you need 7324 people, exactly.
makeitrain 4y ago
Just count the number of employees to get the total headcount.
sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
The accumulated events and decisions over the lifespan of the company. What's done in house, what's done elsewhere? What "bus factor" do you want your engineering teams to have? What events have left scars on the organization? What prejudices and preferences does the executive leadership have? How does the company handle the fiefdom builders who hire just to make their org size increase? How does the company handle attrition? It's not like there's one "correct" staffing for a large company. There's hundreds of factors, some large some small, that add up over time. The company has goals to reach and problems to solve as each of those decisions are made, and those evolve as the company evolves.
- SilasX 4y ago
  The point is, it’s easy to vomit a laundry list of reason why a company needs more staff. But it doesn’t shed light onto why a 7000 figure is reasonable until it justifies why other figures are too high or too low. Nor does your comment.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
    Your comment continues to presume that there is a specific correct value or range of values. That's simply not the case. The list of potential reasons is long because there are a lot of contributing reasons. What are Twitter's goals pre-buyout? Are those the same as Twitter's goals post-buyout? What are the decisions the company makes in pursuing those goals, in each of those contexts? Analyzing all the decisions that brought Twitter or any other company to a specific count of employees is an extensive undertaking, and would require extraordinary memory and honesty of a huge number of people. And you'll still have a giant pile of decisions that could have gone either way depending on slight changes in conditions.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      > Your comment continues to presume that there is a specific correct value or range of values No, I was replying to a comment that was attempting to justify ~7000 as a reasonable figure for what Twitter’s app needs to do. Don’t take my word for it! Read the thread history if you don’t believe me!

But why does it add up to 7000 headcount rather than 3500 headcount or 14000 headcount?

by SilasX 4y ago

But why does it add up to 7000 headcount rather than 3500 headcount or 14000 headcount?

Moderation, customer support, sales, and then everyone to support all those people. You don't think that matters, but it has a real impact on your bottom line. Companies are stopping advertising now, not because Musk took over, but because they can't support for advertising (probably because they were sacked). It was one of the worlds largest social media platforms! Couple that with the reality that Twitter needs at LEAST twice as many people to function than it currently has, even after Musk sent everyone packing. How do I know this? Because the remaining people need to work at least twice as much to make up for the people that left. And this of course ignores all the things that have failed since he took over. The current people are NOT keeping Twitter at 100%. It's already failing.

SilasX 4y ago
> You don't think that matters, I didn’t express an opinion on that, and actually believe the opposite of what you just hastily attributed to me. My point is that, when gauging whether 7000 is a reasonable figure, it’s not enough to vomit a laundry list of work that the company needs to do — because that kind of argument would apply equally well to justifying 3500, 7000, 14000, or a million. To justify a specific figure, you need more rigor than hand waving about general work categories. The parent didn’t.
- vkou 4y ago
  The parent poster, as an outsider, only makes informed, but speculative guesses about Twitter's business footprint, as does ~anyone who does not have T9 vision of the firm. I am not going to tell you that their right size is 3500, or 1500, or 7000, or 14000, because I don't know what it is. But I will say that it's very likely to be measured in the thousands. [1] [1] Although you can always try to shrink the business... A Twitter that doesn't work, and has no revenue could probably be ran by ~0 employees.
- jasonlotito 4y ago
  > I didn’t express an opinion on that, Don't be pedantic. It's worthless. > My point is that, when gauging whether 7000 is a reasonable figure Evidence shows you need 7324 people, exactly.

makeitrain 4y ago

Just count the number of employees to get the total headcount.

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago

The accumulated events and decisions over the lifespan of the company. What's done in house, what's done elsewhere? What "bus factor" do you want your engineering teams to have? What events have left scars on the organization? What prejudices and preferences does the executive leadership have? How does the company handle the fiefdom builders who hire just to make their org size increase? How does the company handle attrition? It's not like there's one "correct" staffing for a large company. There's hundreds of factors, some large some small, that add up over time. The company has goals to reach and problems to solve as each of those decisions are made, and those evolve as the company evolves.

SilasX 4y ago
The point is, it’s easy to vomit a laundry list of reason why a company needs more staff. But it doesn’t shed light onto why a 7000 figure is reasonable until it justifies why other figures are too high or too low. Nor does your comment.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  Your comment continues to presume that there is a specific correct value or range of values. That's simply not the case. The list of potential reasons is long because there are a lot of contributing reasons. What are Twitter's goals pre-buyout? Are those the same as Twitter's goals post-buyout? What are the decisions the company makes in pursuing those goals, in each of those contexts? Analyzing all the decisions that brought Twitter or any other company to a specific count of employees is an extensive undertaking, and would require extraordinary memory and honesty of a huge number of people. And you'll still have a giant pile of decisions that could have gone either way depending on slight changes in conditions.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    > Your comment continues to presume that there is a specific correct value or range of values No, I was replying to a comment that was attempting to justify ~7000 as a reasonable figure for what Twitter’s app needs to do. Don’t take my word for it! Read the thread history if you don’t believe me!