5 ms·

Twitter had almost the same number of people as SpaceX. One of those companies launches a rocket a week, multiple manned missions a year to the ISS, operates a

Twitter had almost the same number of people as SpaceX. One of those companies launches a rocket a week, multiple manned missions a year to the ISS, operates a global satellite internet constellation, and is building a ship that can go to Mars. The other company.. does what?

mikeyouse 4y ago
Had $5b in annual revenue and served hundreds of million of tweets daily?
- bottlepalm 4y ago
  Those 280 characters must generate some immense traffic.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  Got itself valued at $44B with that revenue and with substantial annual losses. In a way, Twitter has been hugely successful.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Certainly to people that sold Musk stock lmao.
coffeeblack 4y ago
*launched and landed
themitigating 4y ago
I don't see how you can compare two unrelated companies staffing levels. You are simply implying complexity has a direct correlation to the correct workforce amount. Walmart has 2.3 million employees but it's just a store. Why do they need that many when SpaceX has N employees and is launching rockets
- bottlepalm 4y ago
  I guess probably a third of SpaceX is technicians, and Twitter doesn’t really build anything or operate any store fronts.
  - shagie 4y ago
    How large of a sales team does SpaceX have (or need)? How about SpaceX's privacy compliance and data governance? Red team to try to see how a feature could be used nefariously? Internationalization of the content? Moderation and content teams to make sure that the sales or marketing doesn't have to answer awkward questions about why advertisements are showing up in disreputable parts of the site? Yes, Twitter doesn't build physical things or operate any store fronts... but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of complexity that is within the company and the way that it maintains its funding.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  > Walmart has 2.3 million employees but it's just a store. This is a terrible example and you know it. Walmart has physical stores everywhere.
  - kllrnohj 4y ago
    That's exactly the point - Twitter had sales reps & SpaceX didn't. Twitter had moderators and SpaceX didn't. The companies have different external-facing relationships at every level, even ignoring the obviously massive unrelated engineering differences.
    - Mikeb85 4y ago
      5000 salespeople and moderators? Please... They don't need that. Besides, my comment was about Walmart, which has over 10,000 stores... So of course they have more employees than Twitter by a huge margin.
      - themitigating 4y ago
toast0 4y ago
> The other company.. does what? Has hundreds of millions of users and had an awful lot of advertiser accounts. How many accounts does SpaceX have? Yes, a lot more now that they've got their Internet service, but managing users is labor intensive, even if you don't provide many means of contact. Advertisers, especially large brand accounts, is labor intensive too, and if you lose half your big accounts because you cut staff willy-nilly, there goes a lot of revenue.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Managing satellites is labor-intensive. Setting up a really big database and talking to advertisers is not rocket science. Both companies could probably operate with a lower headcount, but Twitter is fat and everyone knows it. They're not worth $44 billion in their wildest dreams, and they've already been hemorrhaging revenue for the better half of a decade. An operationally viable Twitter does not include 7500 employees, unless ~6000 of them are working on something other than Twitter.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    This statement "but Twitter is fat and everyone knows it" Everyone knows it because it's what everyone on the right has been stating without evidence for weeks. You've heard it so much it's become like an obvious fact even though you can't point to any hard evidence. I say this because you make statements like that. As if you are saying "The capital of France is Paris". You also said "Twitter does not include 7500 employees, unless ~6000 of them are working on something other than Twitter." How do you know how many employees it takes? How do you know 1500 is all they need? You just keep making statements without any backing them up nor do I think you can unless you're C level at Twitter Also any company might be losing money with staff being the main reason but still need that level of staff.
mandeepj 4y ago
> Twitter had almost the same number of people as SpaceX. Nope! Spacex has 9500 employees > multiple manned missions a year to the ISS Over 100k people worked on Crew Dragon Crew-2 mission from three different locations in making sure it's a success. But, here you are drinking cool-aid
- bottlepalm 4y ago
  I mean if you count the farmers who grew the beans that the astronauts ate then you could say 'we all' worked on Crew Dragon.
  - mandeepj 4y ago
    > I mean if you count the farmers who grew the beans that the astronauts ate then you could say 'we all' worked on Crew Dragon. But, that's not what happened or I implied. Read for yourself -> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-nasa-astronaut-mission-launch-100000-workers-demo2-2020-6 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
    - bottlepalm 4y ago
      If you count all the programmers who wrote all the libraries, platforms, operating system's that Twitter is built on, that would also be over 100k. A great example - Boeing had more money, more people and the same external support and they STILL haven't launched a vehicle yet. SpaceX has beat them by almost 4 years and counting. You'd think with '100k people' they could do it by now right?
      - test098 4y ago
        > If you count all the programmers who wrote all the libraries, platforms, operating system's that Twitter is built on, that would also be over 100k. Again, OP didn't do that. In the article, Elon Musk's quote didn't reference "all the programmers who wrote all the libraries, platforms, operating system's that [SpaceX] is built on."

mikeyouse 4y ago

Had $5b in annual revenue and served hundreds of million of tweets daily?

bottlepalm 4y ago
Those 280 characters must generate some immense traffic.
dpkirchner 4y ago
Got itself valued at $44B with that revenue and with substantial annual losses. In a way, Twitter has been hugely successful.
- ilyt 4y ago
  Certainly to people that sold Musk stock lmao.

coffeeblack 4y ago

*launched and landed

themitigating 4y ago

I don't see how you can compare two unrelated companies staffing levels. You are simply implying complexity has a direct correlation to the correct workforce amount. Walmart has 2.3 million employees but it's just a store. Why do they need that many when SpaceX has N employees and is launching rockets

bottlepalm 4y ago
I guess probably a third of SpaceX is technicians, and Twitter doesn’t really build anything or operate any store fronts.
- shagie 4y ago
  How large of a sales team does SpaceX have (or need)? How about SpaceX's privacy compliance and data governance? Red team to try to see how a feature could be used nefariously? Internationalization of the content? Moderation and content teams to make sure that the sales or marketing doesn't have to answer awkward questions about why advertisements are showing up in disreputable parts of the site? Yes, Twitter doesn't build physical things or operate any store fronts... but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of complexity that is within the company and the way that it maintains its funding.
Mikeb85 4y ago
> Walmart has 2.3 million employees but it's just a store. This is a terrible example and you know it. Walmart has physical stores everywhere.
- kllrnohj 4y ago
  That's exactly the point - Twitter had sales reps & SpaceX didn't. Twitter had moderators and SpaceX didn't. The companies have different external-facing relationships at every level, even ignoring the obviously massive unrelated engineering differences.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    5000 salespeople and moderators? Please... They don't need that. Besides, my comment was about Walmart, which has over 10,000 stores... So of course they have more employees than Twitter by a huge margin.
    - themitigating 4y ago

toast0 4y ago

> The other company.. does what? Has hundreds of millions of users and had an awful lot of advertiser accounts. How many accounts does SpaceX have? Yes, a lot more now that they've got their Internet service, but managing users is labor intensive, even if you don't provide many means of contact. Advertisers, especially large brand accounts, is labor intensive too, and if you lose half your big accounts because you cut staff willy-nilly, there goes a lot of revenue.

smoldesu 4y ago
Managing satellites is labor-intensive. Setting up a really big database and talking to advertisers is not rocket science. Both companies could probably operate with a lower headcount, but Twitter is fat and everyone knows it. They're not worth $44 billion in their wildest dreams, and they've already been hemorrhaging revenue for the better half of a decade. An operationally viable Twitter does not include 7500 employees, unless ~6000 of them are working on something other than Twitter.
- themitigating 4y ago
  This statement "but Twitter is fat and everyone knows it" Everyone knows it because it's what everyone on the right has been stating without evidence for weeks. You've heard it so much it's become like an obvious fact even though you can't point to any hard evidence. I say this because you make statements like that. As if you are saying "The capital of France is Paris". You also said "Twitter does not include 7500 employees, unless ~6000 of them are working on something other than Twitter." How do you know how many employees it takes? How do you know 1500 is all they need? You just keep making statements without any backing them up nor do I think you can unless you're C level at Twitter Also any company might be losing money with staff being the main reason but still need that level of staff.

mandeepj 4y ago

> Twitter had almost the same number of people as SpaceX. Nope! Spacex has 9500 employees > multiple manned missions a year to the ISS Over 100k people worked on Crew Dragon Crew-2 mission from three different locations in making sure it's a success. But, here you are drinking cool-aid

bottlepalm 4y ago
I mean if you count the farmers who grew the beans that the astronauts ate then you could say 'we all' worked on Crew Dragon.
- mandeepj 4y ago
  > I mean if you count the farmers who grew the beans that the astronauts ate then you could say 'we all' worked on Crew Dragon. But, that's not what happened or I implied. Read for yourself -> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-nasa-astronaut-mission-launch-100000-workers-demo2-2020-6 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
  - bottlepalm 4y ago
    If you count all the programmers who wrote all the libraries, platforms, operating system's that Twitter is built on, that would also be over 100k. A great example - Boeing had more money, more people and the same external support and they STILL haven't launched a vehicle yet. SpaceX has beat them by almost 4 years and counting. You'd think with '100k people' they could do it by now right?
    - test098 4y ago
      > If you count all the programmers who wrote all the libraries, platforms, operating system's that Twitter is built on, that would also be over 100k. Again, OP didn't do that. In the article, Elon Musk's quote didn't reference "all the programmers who wrote all the libraries, platforms, operating system's that [SpaceX] is built on."