Exactly. So why not a 85% cut from 400 to 50, instead of 16%? What strategic purpose does a reduction in workforce serve it it's not materially realigning staff

Exactly. So why not a 85% cut from 400 to 50, instead of 16%? What strategic purpose does a reduction in workforce serve it it's not materially realigning staffing on updated business priorities, such as putting the effort on a very clear pause? I don't think 16% is going to change the objectives and priorities of a team. Just gonna make them slower.