Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hundreds of Twitter Employees Leaving After Elon Musk's 'Extremely Hardcore' Work Demands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Isn’t that the whole idea about government subsidies and loans; to hall a company?
The math isn't correct, and can't be. If you're trying to describe the Pareto principle, it scales linearly with population size. The classic (and original) example is wealth distribution where 20% of people hold 80% of the wealth. If you have a population of 10, 2 hold 80% of the wealth. If you have 100, 20 do. Etc.
Note that there is more wealth with 100 people than with 10 just as there's more work done with 10,000 people than with 2,500.
Your math is fundamentally broken. You're saying that if there are 10,000 people, only 100 are doing most of the work and if there are 100 people, 10 are. So if Twitter was broken into 100 divisions of 100 people each, then each division would have 10 people doing good work totaling to 1000 people in the company as a whole. If that's true, then Musk should have just reorganized the company into smaller divisions rather than firing people and he'd magically have 1000 people doing the work that 100 used to.
With linear scaling (ie. 80/20) the math doesn't break. If you have 10,000 people you'd assume 2000 are doing 80% of the work. If you reorganized the company into 100 divisions of 100 people, then you'd assume 20 in each division are doing 80% of the work, totaling to 2000 in the company as a whole.
Your recommendation to "keep firing" as a solution also shows some deep flaws in logic. Let's say you're right. Of the 10,000 people, 100 are doing most of the work. Musk cuts the company back to about 2500 people-- now there are 50 people left to do the work that 100 used to do.
What you say? The whole point is to keep the 100 good workers from among the 10,000 and fire the rest? Then your math stops working again. If you think you can selectively break the square root relationship when describing the post-Musk scenario then how can you assume it ever held in the first place? And why wouldn't you assume that you lose more good employees in this toxic ****-storm rather than retain them?
The idea is push for things we want as a society and help encourage a space to grow and develop
That's different than "this existing company is literally about to be dead and bankrupt without Gov help"
So you’re against the chip act? Are you against the bills in congress offering up grants to the bigger auto makers that already have billions on hand?
Or should subsidies and grants only go to a start up if the meet certain criteria such as gender and ethnicity and not a person named Elon.
I didn’t make this up. This is from Prof. Jordan B. Peterson. He’s a Psychoanalyst. It’s taught both in Psychology and in Behavioural Economics.
The logical fallacy you made with breaking up into groups is that you assumed equal contribution among all groups. For example, the search team is surely having a bigger impact than some woke PC police team or some internal diversity, inclusion and sexual violence advocacy team.
The point is not to fire the rest, but rather, constantly hiring the best of the best, while constantly trimming from the bottom. You need fillers and you need some disposable employees. Just like not all military personnel can be Seal or Delta. This is the only way to beat the odds and retain a highly productive team. The square root law only applies to the natural state, i.e., the equilibrium.
Imagine a pool. The natural state is filth, right? Maybe only the square root of the total amount of water is truly clean. What do you do? Dump the rest even though most are just a little dirty? No. You filter the water. How do you do that? Dump the dirtiest, add clean water, and filter the middle.
In a company, what do you do? Fire the bottom, hire the best, and push the middle, constantly.
Remember, always shuffling.
Edit: 80/20 rule doesn’t mean it’s 80% to 20% in every case. It’s a dumbed down version of the Pareto Principle, which outlines a distribution curve, which means you have to define where the cutoff is. Aside from that, it varies slightly for each situation.
Last edited:
You started talking about math and Pareto but now it's clear you're really talking about politics. Not worth arguing it further.
Toxic excuse for a human being:
apple.news
Is the world's richest person the world's worst boss? What it's like working for Elon Musk — Los Angeles Times
Elon Musk's track record as a boss is an endless scroll of impulse firings, retribution, tone-deafness on race — and the impregnation of a subordinate.
Jordonk Petersonk used his psych skills to understand that there is a group of insecure and easily manipulated people out there to sell dumb self help books to and once they gave him some money they can be manipulated even more. He's just Gwyneth Paltrow for sad men.
Last edited:
Even better, and what other companies have done, is split off the “valuable” employees into a skunkworks project, business as usual on the legacy platform while they work on the new thing. Then, in 6 months introduce the beginnings of the new thing. It’s not feature complete, but it’s enough to get users exited about and signing up for. If all goes well in less than 2 years your last legacy user stops using the legacy product and by then your 2.0 folks are running the 2.0 product and you let go of everyone else.
What the heck does "the square root of the total amount of water" even mean? How can you have a square root of a liquid? Are you counting individual H2O molecules? Because if that's the case you're saying that less than a single drop of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool that is "truly clean". Whatever that even means.
The bickering amongst members in this thread is exactly the reason so many people just want to watch Twitter burn. I will miss the Twitter of 10 years ago. But I won't miss what it has become today.
Who gets to decide what this natural state is?
If a company once was stable at 100 emplyees and then decided to hire 900 more. After that change, does it contain 10 or 32 "good" workers?
That's why politicians and CEOs should **** off from social media. It brings out the worst in them and in turn they bring out the worst in everyone. It's a vicious circle jerk of sh-tposting and mind manipulation.
Did Jobs fire 100% av Apple's contractors and more than half the employees with three weeks of returning?
correction - all are all indicative of what *you* perceive as not deeply considered.
I’ve found Twitter quite useful even though I rarely interact in it. Twitter has been wonderful to connect academics and different threads of thoughts. It’s also been wonderful for many Blacks, I.e., Black Twitter. There are just so many ways to experience Twitter.
Right?
Jobs can't be compared to this lying manipulating nutsack Musk.
Jobs wasn't perfect, he was always nervous and sweaty and a really bad driver, but he wasn't openly unethical and trollish.
When Jobs returned to Apple he grew the company and kept growing it until he passed away. He didn't randomly fire really smart people on Twitter of all places.
Jobs liked people who challenged him. Joanna Hoffman used to challenge him and push him at NeXT and Apple. He really appreciated her more than anyone. That was the only accurate part about him in Danny Boyle's film.
Jobs wasn't obsessed with owning tons of stock and manipulating stock prices with lies on top of lies on top of false promises. He sold all his stock in 1985 and never bought AAPL again. He was awarded stock when he returned to CEO role but wealth was never his priority.
For Elon, wealth is a priority because he wants power to abuse and bully.
Jobs hated social media. He called Facebook 'Faecesbook' because he understood social media was just mind twisting and bad for mental health.
For Elon, using social media to twist minds and damage mental health of the population is good fun. It's entertaining for him.
Jobs snubbed Musk at an event. He probably heard that Musk was a sneaky ball of hair transplanted garbage who lied his way up the ladder and didn't want to speak to him.
These two people are polar opposites.
+1
There is an odd idea that freedom of speech is also a right to have that speech facilitated by anyone of your choosing. It isn't.
And then it's even worse. I wouldn't work for a company where managers willing lie to deceive you.
Twitter employees are notorious for not working hard at all. Elon is simply separating the good from the bad Apples. He knows what he is doing. Probably 80% of the work done at Twitter was done by the 20% most likely.
And I highly doubt you need over 10k people with an average salary of six figures to run a social media website.
The problem why Twitter is unprofitable is not because of the revenue, but due to the huge overhead it has.
And I highly doubt you need over 10k people with an average salary of six figures to run a social media website.
The problem why Twitter is unprofitable is not because of the revenue, but due to the huge overhead it has.
Last edited:
- Status