3 ms·
the article states they laid off 11% , less than 5 months ago. That's 26.1% Anecdata, but in several years of being a Twilio customer, I have never seen such
by IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
the article states they laid off 11% , less than 5 months ago.
That's 26.1%
Anecdata, but in several years of being a Twilio customer, I have never seen such a long outage.
EDIT: fixed % of %.
- ghostpepper 4y agoThat's only 28% if the 17% was calculated as a percentage of their pre-first-layoff headcount.
- pkulak 4y agoWell, it's 26%, but close enough.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- p_j_w 4y ago>the article states they laid off 11% , less than 5 months ago. Unless the 11% and 17% are both talking about the original number of employees, the percentages don't simply add up like that. If it was 11% of the original number of staff then 17% of the leftovers, it'd be 26%: .11+.17*.89=0.26 Still, that's not a huge difference so I don't know why people are getting up in arms over it.
- modriano 4y agoIf you ate 75% of a pie, then ate 75% of that remaining piece of pie, how much pie would you have left?
- bloodyplonker22 4y agoSorry, but you cannot just add percentages together. If you lay off 11% from X and then lay off 17% from what you have remaining, the total amount laid off is not 28%. It does not quite work like that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bedast 4y agoThe original headline said 6 hours ago. 5 months ago is quite a bit longer than 6 hours ago, last I checked.
- kelnos 4y agoThe 6 hours was referring to the length of the outage, not when the layoff was. Even the most recent layoff was 2 days ago, not 6 hours ago.