3 ms·
> 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 t
by 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 agoThe 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.