3 ms·

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.

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.

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.