3 ms·

The point is they didn’t need any couch there. Or could have gotten something comfortable from ikea and maybe wouldn’t have had to sell their company to Elon an

by influx 4y ago

The point is they didn’t need any couch there. Or could have gotten something comfortable from ikea and maybe wouldn’t have had to sell their company to Elon and had all this useless shit auctioned off.

maxerickson 4y ago
Twitter didn't sell out of desperation, the offer was way above what the company was worth. A court was on the cusp of forcing the deal through when it finally moved forward. So think of it as a $15,000 couch being liquidated.
- influx 4y ago
  Tell that to all my colleagues who don’t have a job anymore.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    They wouldn't have a job even if the Seattle office had a futon rescued from a garbage bin instead of a $10k couch.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Despite lofty messages about changing the world, every startup is ultimately destined for the wood chipper of finance. Twitter actually did pretty good. It wasn't a fire sale, they managed to find a buyer who would significantly overpay, and they actually did so right before a market downturn. From a shareholder perspective, this was a wild success. As far as the damage to the people working at the company, welcome to living under a paperclip-maximizing economy. It was abrupt to have the buyer do the analog of the rich guy cliche of buying a sports car just to crash it on the way home. But in some sense it's better than watching the pot slowly boil with cost cutting, dark patterns, and more surveillance ("ad") tech. You also underestimate just how much companies pay for shit in general. Couches/chairs from Ikea can work for a tiny company, but that's about the limit. Above that, things just need to be built better so they can function as an abstraction and be forgotten about. Plus, the mood that couch helped set was instrumental in increasing the sale value of the company - see goal #1.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    The point of a normal for-profit company is to make money for investors (ie: owners). Period. The employees are merely a means to an end and irrelevant beyond that end.
  - tdeck 4y ago
    If you're concerned about that shouldn't your critiques be aimed at the person currently wrecking the company with massive debt, rather than the expense of a single couch that's like one month comp for a single engineer?

by influx 4y ago

maxerickson 4y ago

Twitter didn't sell out of desperation, the offer was way above what the company was worth. A court was on the cusp of forcing the deal through when it finally moved forward. So think of it as a $15,000 couch being liquidated.

influx 4y ago
Tell that to all my colleagues who don’t have a job anymore.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  They wouldn't have a job even if the Seattle office had a futon rescued from a garbage bin instead of a $10k couch.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 4y ago
  Despite lofty messages about changing the world, every startup is ultimately destined for the wood chipper of finance. Twitter actually did pretty good. It wasn't a fire sale, they managed to find a buyer who would significantly overpay, and they actually did so right before a market downturn. From a shareholder perspective, this was a wild success. As far as the damage to the people working at the company, welcome to living under a paperclip-maximizing economy. It was abrupt to have the buyer do the analog of the rich guy cliche of buying a sports car just to crash it on the way home. But in some sense it's better than watching the pot slowly boil with cost cutting, dark patterns, and more surveillance ("ad") tech. You also underestimate just how much companies pay for shit in general. Couches/chairs from Ikea can work for a tiny company, but that's about the limit. Above that, things just need to be built better so they can function as an abstraction and be forgotten about. Plus, the mood that couch helped set was instrumental in increasing the sale value of the company - see goal #1.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- marcinzm 4y ago
  The point of a normal for-profit company is to make money for investors (ie: owners). Period. The employees are merely a means to an end and irrelevant beyond that end.
- tdeck 4y ago
  If you're concerned about that shouldn't your critiques be aimed at the person currently wrecking the company with massive debt, rather than the expense of a single couch that's like one month comp for a single engineer?