Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
)
Pick your Feature request: paint jobs on custom starts
I am personally against the idea of Twitter, especailly it's handling of a certain former president, sure his posts were in some way sort of censored, but to me, Twitter should have taken action against him and others who voice the same BS, after all, some people still were able to communicate via Twitter, even though hose people are / were known associates of that former president. Sure he got banned, but I feel the company should have put their foot down sooner.Vertigo 7 wrote: ↑Fri, 11. Nov 22, 04:17Does it really matter if twitter flutters away or not? The interwebs was just fine before it was even a thing, it'll be just fine when it's gone. Do we really care what some pseudo-celebrity's opinion is on anything? Or actual celebrities? It's not exactly as if twitter is being used for deep, meaningful, thought provoking ideas. It's an ad platform at its base and I dunno about you, but I could sure do with less of that. And, with ol Elon's ideas of "free speech" being what they are, we're arguably better off with out it anyway. It's not like white nationalists need yet another echo chamber.
Let it burn. All the IT staff worth their salt will find gainful employment elsewhere soon enough.
This has resulted in Twitter having to close all of its offices until Monday, the 21st, due to what looks like a lack of staff. Before Musk took over there were over 8000 employees, first round he sacked over 3000, so down to around 5000, he has slowly been nibbling away at that sacking those that stood up for themselves and the like now with the walkout it is rumoured there are probably less than 2000 left."I didn't want to work for someone who threatened us over email multiple times about only 'exceptional tweeps should work here' when I was already working 60-70 hours weekly,"
Oh please don't make him stop. He totally should kill Twitter and then go back to Tesla afterwards. We need disruptive forces in the "social" media world, and lots of them
Pick your Feature request: paint jobs on custom starts
Erm, what point are you making at the top as I'm unaware of the sacking spree.felter wrote: ↑Fri, 18. Nov 22, 04:21I wasn't really wanting to comment on this again, but it is just like the never anding story as it just keeps on going. So Mr Musk, an advocate for free speech believing one can say whatever they want, went on another sacking spree yesterday not because they weren't needed for the continued running of Twitter no he sacked them because they disagreed with something he said and pointed out his mistake, so he sacked them, so much for freedom of speech.
It also turns out he has been trying to re-employ some of those that he sacked in his clamp down, which looks like he sacked some he shouldn't have sacked and are required for the running of Twitter, most if not all have told him to take a run and jump.
Then because he no longer has the staff to run Twitter any longer, he emailed his staff telling them they have to agree to working more hours and do more work or quit, so how did that go well it turns out an awful lot of them decided to quit, not because they were being expected to do some extra work, no it is looking like they quit because of the way their new boss has been treating them as he has been very rude, for example one employee said:
This has resulted in Twitter having to close all of its offices until Monday, the 21st, due to what looks like a lack of staff. Before Musk took over there were over 8000 employees, first round he sacked over 3000, so down to around 5000, he has slowly been nibbling away at that sacking those that stood up for themselves and the like now with the walkout it is rumoured there are probably less than 2000 left."I didn't want to work for someone who threatened us over email multiple times about only 'exceptional tweeps should work here' when I was already working 60-70 hours weekly,"
Someone should write a book (and probably will) titled how to kill a company and loose 44 billion in under a month. One other thing it turns out he may be looking for someone to take over the running of Twitter, good luck to them.
On a totally different matter but related to Musk. Do you own a tesla does it have ADAS that's the automated driver assistance system, if so you may want to consider not using it as there has been another 2 deaths being associated with it in America. Since June 2021 the NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recorded 18 deaths related to ADAS 17 of those were caused by the Tesla system (oops.) It also looks like for every 1000 vehicles, Tesla are reporting 474 have crashed, while the nearest competitor Honda who have reported 107. Yeah, not so good Mr Tesla, maybe Musk should be spending more time sorting that issue out rather than spouting conspiracy theories and trying to kill Twitter.
Tesla
I don't know about you, but throughout my career, I never worked at a company where publicly criticizing the company or it's management was acceptable. It is always a firing offense. I'm not saying this, in defense of Musk in general, just that in this particular case I think his actions were justified.felter wrote: ↑Fri, 18. Nov 22, 04:21So Mr Musk, an advocate for free speech believing one can say whatever they want, went on another sacking spree yesterday not because they weren't needed for the continued running of Twitter no he sacked them because they disagreed with something he said and pointed out his mistake, so he sacked them, so much for freedom of speech.
I don't think either you or I, or anyone on this forum will be able to understand that. I personally think William Gibson had a point even though I do think he overdid it for the sake of writing and entertaining novel:felter wrote: ↑Fri, 18. Nov 22, 16:33[...]
One other thing, if I spent $44 billion on Twitter I would be doing everything to make it good, so I can't understand what Musk is doing. Do you know he had to sell Billions in Tesla shares plus take out a massive loan to get enough money to buy Twitter, the interest on the loan itself is supposedly higher than Twitters yearly revenue, and he is dragging the company through the mud, I don't get it, seems just pure stupid to me, why do such a thing?
We should not forget that people like Elon Musk are not bound by any laws or restraints the same way in which we are. People like him are free of basic rules of society, who knows what that does to the brain of a human. Maybe we are simply not made to hold that much unchallenged power. Ethan Couch for example had only a fraction of the wealth Musk had, yet his wealth allowed him to only serve less than two years in jail for killing four while driving drunk, a crime which is usually punished with longer sentences in America. The prosecution wanted 20 years in jail. However "[...] a psychologist who testified in Mr. Couch’s defense argued that he suffered from 'affluenza', psychological afflictions said to result from growing up with wealth and privilege", thus the shorter sentence.William Gibson - Count Zero wrote:And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.
No need to go so deep - narcissism covers most traits you see in people like that (and I am not sure it is linked to affluence in any way - it simply amplifies the already existing diagnoses).
Nothing... I'm not upset, I'm just baffled why some think X is being a good guy in a scenario and Y is being a bad guy. Does Musk a douche, yes. Demonstrably so. But being sacked is being sacked. Musk heads Twitter, Zuckerberg heads Meta. Both have fired thousands. The reasons for why people are being fired differs. One is rude and obnoxious, the other apparently isn't. But I was pointing out one is firing people because of a belief it's needed (it's a bit quick, I mean he's barely through the door to assess what he's working with!). The other is firing people not because the company is losing money and has been since it started. He's firing people because it's profits are down and share price is down so shareholders must be placated that action is being taken to trim costs and address possible issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_PlatformsAlso, you keep saying Facebook fired people, they didn't it was their parent company Meta that did so. You have to take it into context for example as of November 30 this year Meta employed 87,314 full time employees, that does not include part-time, contractor or agency employees, now as far as I can gather, though this is hard to confirm, and I doubt anyone actually knows the figure, but it is reckoned that there are around 500,000 people worldwide employed by Meta, and they got rid of around 11,000, which also as far as I can gather is taken their employment back to the numbers they had in November last year. That works out at around 13% of full time employees fired, though I haven't seen it being said it was just full time employees they were getting rid of, but it could be I don't l just don't know. Even saying that for a company of that size numbers will fluctuate on a daily basis, as people come and go and jobs come and go, also remember not all of those firings, though I suspect some of them were, were made at Facebook, it was at Meta.
He's sacked more than the entire Twitter workforce.In November 2022, Meta laid off 11,000 employees, 13% of its workforce. Zuckerberg said the decision to aggressively increase Meta's investments was a mistake, as he had wrongly predicted that the surge in e-commerce would last beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. He also attributed the decline to increased competition, a global economic downturn and "ads signal loss".
Your comment basically hits the nail on the head even though I do not agree with your conclusion that there is a difference between the two.CBJ wrote: ↑Sat, 19. Nov 22, 15:07I do get your point, Chips. It's pretty standard behaviour for large companies to hire and fire on the basis of financial constraints that are more about squeezing every possible ounce of profit out of their operations, rather than out of necessity to keep the company running. And from the employee's point of view, losing your source of income is losing your source of income. Nobody should be fooled into thinking that any of these companies give a damn about individual workers in the big scheme of things.
But, that said, there is still a right and wrong way to go about firing people. US employment law is notoriously skewed in favour of the employer compared to, say, UK or EU law. With that in mind, Facebook/Meta are most likely following the rules that apply in any given jurisdiction; what Musk is doing almost certainly wouldn't be legal in the UK or EU, and might not be even in some US states. But even putting legality aside, being told formally that you're being let go for financial reasons is still less unpleasant than finding yourself locked out of your office and/or laptop without warning, told that you need to sign up for "extreme" working conditions when you are already working a 70 hour week, or any of the other horror-stories coming out of Twitter at the moment.
