I did SRE consulting work for a phase of my career... as the author points out, these systems are scaled out and resilient, but what happens next is entropy. Team sizes shrink, everything starts to be viewed through a cost cutting / savings lens, overtaxed staff start ignoring problems or the long-term view because they are in firefighting mode, it becomes hard to attract new talent because the perception is
"the good times are over." Things start to become brittle and/or not get the attention needed, contractors are brought in because they are cheaper and/or bits get outsourced to the cheapest bidder... the professional care and attention like the author clearly brought just starts to shift over time. Consultants like me are brought in to diagnose what's wrong - the good staff could write our briefs, they know what's going on - and generally we slap a band-aid on the problem because management just wants to squeeze whatever value they can out of the assets rather than actually improve anything.
The reality is most huge companies are majority bloat. The hiring numbers are also in part crap that goes into Series X Raise pitch decks. Oftentimes a lot of the new bloat pisses off competent people, because their work doesn't actually get less, it becomes more. Not only do they have to now nanny people that are often not actually competent in their job, they just happened to go through the coding interview with wholly unqualified interviewers, but they now also have to handle nightmare features that were built by people completely disconnected from the other side.
I'm not a friend of Elon's, but outside of the flashiness of the whole thing, I don't think his firing spree was wholly unwarranted.
The other day I saw a video of a bunch of people at twitter leaving that have been there for a decade or so. I mean wholly crap, this reminds me of old German industry where people retire in the place they started.
Except in these firing sprees it's not competent employees that remain - those people are usually the first to jump ship because they have options and see where it's headed. It's not like they get raises for staying to get a part of the savings from the cuts - usually they get pay freezes.
Restructuring is done on whatever idea the new owner(s) have in plan - which could be equally disconnected from "real product".
I'm not that optimistic about Twitter long term - never was TBH but this Musk thing is turning to a shitshow and also exposes what it's like working for him in his other companies.
You realise how annoying it is when you see people around you in the company making as much money as you and doing nothing useful to actually generate revenue. Data scientists that write a blog post about the most used hashtag or emoticon. Or PMs that we don't need...
>You realise how annoying it is when you see people around you in the company making as much money as you and doing nothing useful to actually generate revenue.
Absolutely. I also realize that when a company reaches the firing squad stage it's not a good idea to stick around - better polish up the CV and move to greener pastures. I have no insider information - they could be offering generous (and credible) retention bonuses for critical staff, but I've seen this happen twice before indirectly (I was gone before it started happening) and the people that stayed didn't have a good time, were lied to and left in the end anyway in a worse situation (or waited trough to bankruptcy and had to sue for outstanding wages in first place I worked in)
I have not been impressed with the average tech person's ability to understand parts of a business outside their immediate responsibilities. There were people on here seriously questioning the need for a general counsel for a company that's constantly under legal assault by every country on the planet. Never mind the long recurring "why does an ad-dependent company need people to manage relationships with the big spenders who expect that?" discussions.
By being a free speech platform without the censoring role of an editor, Twitter does not need to care if Qatar is mad about what is written there. If Qatar bans twitter, they ban twitter.
What is a "legal assault" and why does Lichtenstein have an ongoing "legal assault" against twitter?
The previous point is very reasonable, and I think your response is overly flippant and confrontational.
I've had coworkers hounded by managers from unrelated teams because my coworker wasn't working fast enough on a feature that was important to their team. They made assumptions about how many different tasks my coworker might have had assigned to them.
They were juggling like 3 or 4 fairly important features/fixes for various parts of the organization at the time because our team was (in my opinion) understaffed.
But of course, each of the relevant managers can only see "didn't satisfactorily complete my fix in the expected timeframe", and then perf review comes back and collates that info to "doesn't complete tasks on schedule" without taking a step back and recognizing that this is a failure mode of planning where one engineer was responsible for way too much stuff with no reasonable ability to push back.
At the same time, of course, engineers were getting promotions for doing exactly one thing well, which is as it should be.
There are lots of lessons in here, one of which is very likely "push back on work that causes you to overburden yourself", but I'd argue another important lesson is that you just don't see what others are working on. I'd be surprised if there were more than one or two people in your org who knew every task you've completed in the last 30 days, and to me it seems unreasonable to expect that you can make that assessment of more than 5ish people in your immediate radius.
But while we're throwing ad hominems for the fun of it; I'd rather have a bunch of "bloaters" on my team than the one person who is convinced that they are one of the golden few producing value, and everyone else is a lazy freeloader. I've worked with that type of person before and it's awful. It is rarely the case that they are _actually_ producing an 2-3x the value of other engineers, it's much more likely that they're just reducing morale and causing internal conflict while building some small piece of the pie and assuming that's the majority of the work.
Like someone who builds a button that says "delete my account" and says "I built the delete account feature" while not recognizing that there are a ton of people on the database teams that made the feature possible without performance hiccups or leaving dangling foreign keys.
You are bringing up a completely different problem that's a whole another case than bloat: bad managers that don't realise that some workers are juggling many problems, not just their own. That is very different to people doing a lot of work in secret in an unsecretive organisation, like twitter.
> I'd be surprised if there were more than one or two people in your org who knew every task you've completed in the last 30 days, and to me it seems unreasonable to expect that you can make that assessment of more than 5ish people in your immediate radius.
This is not the case at all in many work situations, a prime example being when you work on a team and all code and work produced is shared. None works on other teams. The code reviewer and hopefully project lead will know, or have a very good hunch, what everyone is producing.
I would argue that bad middle management is another bloat problem, so in essence; you just made another point for how bloat is very bad for an organisation. I wonder why you are so interested in defending the all too common effect of corporate bloat in an economy where its calculated that a large percentage of jobs are useless and there is a trend to collect multiple useless jobs.
Yes and no. I think we'd all agree that large tech companies have tons of really obvious staffing inefficiencies. There are many teams working on what are essentially vanity projects and many other teams have more staffing than they realistically need.
On the other hand the slash and burn Elon approach seems objectively terrible. Indiscriminately firing most of the company kills morale and is likely to send the company into a hiring death spiral where your good employees leave and you can't attract good talent. This won't automatically kill the product or the company but it's not going to lend itself to big positive successes in the future.
All companies I’ve worked at, startup to FAANG, have tried their best to reduce attrition and retain employees by providing growth opportunities.
Changing jobs is a skill/knowledge net-negative for the employer, and can be negative (outside of salary) for the employee as they have to relearn everything (relationships, tech debt, processes) etc.
Depends on if you want innovation or stability. For innovation, people building fiefdoms over decades of political maneuvering is terribly destructive to change.
Very few industries require constant learning for the business to compete so a highly tenured employee likely hasn’t learned anything new beyond minute process changes for 10+ years. Once people are ossified into a role like that, they will do anything and everything to shut down anything that has a whiff of threatening their current role.
That is actually not my experience. I worked at a scientific institute on space cameras, and since projects easily last 10 years from design to launch, we have a lot of older people.
Some were resisting change. Some were embracing it. All in all, I had a great time and gained a lot of respect. I love working in teams with all ages.
Your sentence "once people are ossified..." feels like a generalization to me.
> I mean wholly crap, this reminds me of old German industry where people retire in the place they started.
German here. I think this actually is a huge part of the success of the famous Mittelstand - all that institutional knowledge these people have is extremely valuable. It's not just basic stuff like "know time tracking, billing and other admin systems and internal processes", but also the stuff that really can speed up your work: whom to ask on the "kurzer Dienstweg" aka short-circuitting bureaucracy when needed, personal relationships with people in other departments on whose knowledge you rely (it's one thing if you get a random email asking for some shit from someone you don't know, but I'll always find some minutes to help out someone who has helped me out in the past), all the domain-specific knowledge about the precise needs and desires of your customers...
Attrition is bad for a company as a whole, the problem is US-centric capitalism cannot quantify that impact (and it doesn't want to, given that attrition-related problems are long-term issues with years of time to impact), and so there is no KPI for leadership other than attrition rate itself.
The only problem is that over the last years, employers' mindset has shifted from regular wage raises to paying the bare minimum which makes changing jobs every few years a virtual requirement for employees to get raises, and so we are already seeing the first glimpses of US employment culture and its issues cropping up.
> the problem is US-centric capitalism cannot quantify that impact (and it doesn't want to, given that attrition-related problems are long-term issues with years of time to impact)
This is false. People invest on many year horizons all of the time when they believe in the company. If there was good evidence that having an average tenure of 5+ years was a great boost to the company, people would clamor to invest in companies like that.
This was basically Google’s entire pitch when they were an early public company. Happy employees == great things. I remember when 60 minutes or dateline did some special about google before 2010 and people were floored by how good the employees got it. However, hiring standards relaxed and now google is slowly rotting from the inside to realize it’s the new IBM.
Long tenure alone is absolutely not an advantage. It’s very easy to have a bunch of dead weight that just looks like they know what’s going on.
So back to your point about experience mattering. That should show up in customer satisfaction, project turnaround speed, success rates, etc. Otherwise it’s pretty meaningless. And guess who already measures those KPIs…
> This is false. People invest on many year horizons all of the time when they believe in the company.
The perfect example of why that is not the case at least in Silicon Valley is Google and their messengers and social networks... just how many of them exist(ed)? Four? Five? Each of them was someone's promotion project, left to languish, suffer and eventually die afterwards. Honestly it's a wonder Gmail and Maps are still around, their UI hasn't been updated much in ages despite obvious potential for improvements... I guess the only reason why they are alive is that they generate absurd amounts of data.
> This is false. People invest on many year horizons all of the time when they believe in the company.
Granted, but they usually have the option to sell at many points along the way.
Think about an alternative financial instrument. What if you could invest $X in a public company (and get a higher rate of return because of the higher risk) but you lose the ability to sell until five years have passed?
This is one kind of option that might be worth trying. I want to see more mechanisms promoting long-term investment in our public markets. (Bonds are not identical to what I described BTW.)
The lack of these kinds of options (sure, bonds exist but I've not noticed them used with any notable significance in public companies) is why people talk about the short term quarterly focus of Wall Street.
I don’t understand what the point is. You have the option already to hold on for 5 years+. Many people do this (especially employees with vesting schedules) and they are rewarded for doing it.
> is why people talk about the short term quarterly focus of Wall Street.
This is a false meme though. Tesla was worth more than multiple profitable long standing car manufacturers combined before it ever turned a profit. Investors fixate on short term performance when the company has no long term vision and deriving cash flows is much easier (e.g. a container ship holding company).
> You have the option already to hold on for 5 years+.
The difference is having the option. :) Behavior tends to be different if you don't have the option to sell during a window of time.
In this hypothetical case it might serve as a built-in grace period. Companies that otherwise might have failed if measured and punished quarter by quarter might have time to build a product over five year time horizon.
> Long tenure alone is absolutely not an advantage.
It's also not necessarily a disadvantage. The real argument is that people management is important. Everyone from the new person who just joined to the decade long senior engineer need to be held to high standards. Which brings me to my next point.
The big problem with Twitter was management. Dorsey was barely a CEO for many years. Parag didn't seem to want to try anything. I think people routinely underestimate how important good leaders are. "There are no bad teams, only bad leaders" comes to mind. So far Elon has shown himself to be terrible in this regard. With SpaceX and Tesla he communicated a vision, with Twitter he's communicated very little and just instituted chaos.
> The big problem with Twitter was management. Dorsey was barely a CEO for many years. Parag didn't seem to want to try anything.
The problem was even worse: there was no vision at all from no one, not leadership, not the investors, not the users, what Twitter should be, other than "it is a way for instant communication with feeds". Everything else was completely lacking: what features do people want, what moderation policy should be applied, how does Twitter plan to make money.
The only ones that had at least some sort of vision where activists - the left wing, the advertisers and large parts of the users didn't want Nazis any more, and the right wing wanted "free speech" aka allowing Nazis.
I think this is down to the time horizons each kind of company optimizes for. Mittelstands are usually owned by families and they basically try to build a business that will feed the parents as well as kids when they come of age. Publicly listed companies usually optimize for this quarter. So even if you are looking at the same KPIs, you could get different outcomes just due to the utility functions being different.
> The reality is most huge companies are majority bloat.
This is true, and in my opinion, true for a reason. And that reason is not "most huge companies are dumb", as opposed to what Musk's cult seem to believe. The reality is, measuring what exactly is "bloat" and precisely cutting that bloat is extremely difficult and firing more than half of your workforce is probably like using a warhammer to do brain surgery.
Well, your alias actually refers to that process. Large organizations gain entropy over time. And entropy is precisly the inability to describe some structure at a micro/nano-level.
But while fighting the entropy can be hard, not doing so is almost certain to be lethal.
If an organism is infected by gangrene or cancer (the more extreme forms of entropy for a body), it may be more realistic to cut away whole body parts than to treat it in place, even if there is risk of sudden death.
It seems to em that this is what Musk is trying. Either Twitter will be gone within a year, or they may very well be sustainably profitable within 2-3 years.
Software engineers at Twitter got used to working on an money losing company for 10 years and being told they’re great at their job. Then they were fired en masse because someone’s called them out on it.
If your company is losing money all this time you are likely to be fired eventually in the real world. Job security in sw world had become so high that no one seemed to expect it. Everyone assumed “sure we’re losing money and the company has no direction” but all is fine.
They all stayed there in their tables working for 10 years in a rudderless company as if it was a government job.
This is factually untrue though. Twitter was making money in 2018 and 2019 (to the tune of ~1.2B/year in net profit out of ~3B revenue, which is a fairly high profit margin) they lost quite a bit of money in 2020 and less in the years thereafter. However, even in the years where they had negative net income EBITDA remained positive suggesting the losses were upfront investments that would be expected to be amortized over the coming years.
The only reason Twitter is in deep financial shit right now is because Elon acquired it in a leveraged buyout and the cost of servicing the debt is estimated around 1B/year.
Yeah, most of the complaints of Twitter was that it should be doing more in the space it commanded, not that it was losing tons of money every year. Though, 1-1.5B in yearly interest payments is going to make that tough going forward.
>The reality is most huge companies are majority bloat.
Something I learned early in my career is that some companies consider this a feature not a bug. As in, they are hoarding talent so that they don't go to work for their competitor.
Yeah, but that's not what's happening here, is it? Musk is pretty obviously looking for a corporate culture shift, not turning the company into a cash cow - and for this to work, entropy needs only to work slower than half a year. Which this article argues pretty convincingly is going to happen.
I don't know man. His last pure software company was PayPal and they fired his ass from the CEO role and put in a competent CEO (Peter Theil) to right the ship and sell it off before the 01 crash.
Tesla and SpaceX have been wildly successful and he will forever recieve some well deserved credit for their successes but at the same time I think its pretty bad that Tesla (and SpaceX) have had multiple near death experiences and some them could have been avoided if it weren't for incompetence.
I followed the Model 3 production religiously and the amount of dumb mistakes they made even after other industry experts were yelling at them about imminent iceberg collision is just unbelievable. In fact the Model 3 production, with its horribly designed body that he wasn't keeping on top of and Musk's stupid attempts to automate all of assembly should be entirely attributed to him. It was so bad it was worse than even the shortseller's worst predictions.
I guess you can give him a pass for near bankruptcy #1(Roadster roll out) and #4(COVID lockdowns). Not sure about #2(Model S early sales woes and potential acquisition by Google)
All I am saying is that he fucks up A LOT and has thus far managed to stave off the consequences of his decisions but many occurrences have been down to luck and luck is something you should never bet on.
The US has been formed religiously by various congregations that descend from Calvinism, which teaches that hard work earns you the grace of God. In modern times, this has morphed into Prosperity Gospel which teaches that if you are loved by God, you will become materially successful, as well as the flipside; if you are materially successful, you must therefore be loved by God.
The billionaire worship is simply the secular version of this faith. X made billions of dollars by owning a business that does Y, therefore X must be an expert on Y, and businesses in general, and is a genius, and is a morally superior person. Otherwise X wouldn't be a billionaire, because - horror of all horrors - the world is just, isn't it? It couldn't be the case that X just got lucky, can it? Surely, X has earned their billions, right?
You’re still fixating on the wealth part, which people on this site (at least the arguments I see upvoted) do not.
People are “worshipping” Musk because of his repeated success in making successful large innovative businesses. The wealth he has is a product of that, but the deference is to the success of the companies.
Any optimization he might do is unlikely to offset the cost of servicing the debt he offloaded to Twitter's balance sheet after the acquisition.
So at 5% interest the yearly cost is 650 million, even at some obscene and unrealistic payroll per employee (including not only developers), like let's say 400k he'd have to fire over 1600 people just to balance this out. There is no way to spin this positively. Also due to no more RSUs cash comp for remaining employee would need to increase.
Add to that the the loss in advertisement revenue do to obvious reasons.
Taking these facts into account could you please explain how is Musk NOT a liability to Twitter? He basically spent 31 billion (plus 13 billion he offload to Twitter) just to buy the trademark and the user base (and some proportion of advertisers...). From a financial standpoint that's an objectively terrible deal. Musk might have other goals and that's great but in no way this is comparable to Tesla or SpaceX.
>But he did change the world with his companies already, didn't he?
History is full of examples of extraordinary successful people who get blinded by their own success and start thinking that they are infallible. This ussually results which in pretty unhinged behavior when they get older. Musk does not seem like the most grounded person ever so he's likely at a much higher risk of this than almost every tech billionaire I can think of.
also: History is full of examples of extraordinary successful people [period].
Maybe somebody with Musk track record can be seen as more credible than some random "qwytw" on the internet? I mean incentives are on his side, aren't they?
For one his famous. It's his toy, so he won't let it disappear into irrelevance without fighting for it. There are not many people currently alive with comparable track record, being recognized world wide, with deep pockets like him.
What if in few years time from now people will be stepping on each other writing posts and books on how they really knew all of that from the beginning, that obviously he was right etc. - doesn't sound unreal or alien to me, quite opposite actually.
To be honest, I don't even think anything extraordinary needs to happen for all of it to work out just fine.
For all people saying technically it's not just rendering short messages - well it is just that at the end.
Look at stackoverflow - most people don't realize it's just single monolith application running on 6 servers - all of it.
There are still thousands of people employed there, which feels like too many if anything.
Did I misrepresent any facts or figures? Did I lie? What does credibility have anything to do with anything otherwise? It's an objectively bad deal from a financial perspective, if you have any arguments against that you're free to share them.
Twitter might do "fine" as a platform. Sure, why not... Does not change the fact that he grossly overpaid and that the 13 billion in additional debt will be financially crippling for the company. He might sell some more Tesla stock to offset that. I mean it's his money, he can do whatever he wants (unless the SEC stops being a complete joke).
> that obviously he was right etc. - doesn't sound unreal or alien to me, quite opposite actually.
Right about what? Even Zuckerberg seems to have a clearer vision about the Metaverse than Musk seems to have about the future of Twitter. I might be wrong. Care to enlighten me instead of talking about some random tangentially related things?
> There are still thousands of people employed there, which feels like too many if anything.
Sure, can't really disagree. However is it better for a business to have an additional 2000 employees or so who are possibly superfluous or to fire all of them and spend ~600 million or thereabouts servicing a debt incurred for no reason? It's a pretty straightforward you chose to ignore for some reason.
And that makes him infallible? If anyone else but Musk bought Twitter and started doing what he did they'd be the laughing stock of the financial world. His reputation is the only thing keeping him afloat (in this specific case, he might still do great with SpaceX and Tesla but so what? People like Jobs, Buffet, Gates etc. also made significant blunders at some points in their career)
To play devil's advocate for a bit, are you certain he's solely responsible for the successes of SpaceX/Tesla, or that those companies succeeded in spite of his leadership?
In case it isn't clear, I agree with the parent comment. In the same tone as the comment above the parent, you could also write "Thing is - Elon Musk knows a thing or two about sexual harassment lawsuits. It's inevitable that he will have another at Twitter."
Stop idolizing billionaires.
>Musk has successfully run companies in the past and is running two extremely successful companies right now.
Is he actually running those companies, or is he posting selfies of whiteboards at 1:30am showing architecture diagrams of Twitter?
In these markets, after he was nearly forced by courts into completing a purchase deal for Twitter after making an overpriced offer, I'm genuinely curious to see how he pays the ~$1b in interest per year on the debt to purchase Twitter.
No, people are idolizing Musk because he is a billionaire.
People who obviously know absolutely fucking nothing about coding or manufacturing or running businesses or software engineering or cars or space or rockets or emerald mines are continuously defending Musk, and their only justification is that "he's rich, so he's obviously smarter than you!"
> No, people are idolizing Musk because he is a billionaire.
No they are not. They are idolizing him specifically because of the success of Tesla, SpaceX, and PayPal.
> "he's rich, so he's obviously smarter than you!"
Nobody is making that argument. Its usually, “look at the success of the companies he leads”.
You can make an argument about whether or not he should get the credit he does for the success, but nobody is idolizing the wealth.
None of these people are going to defend the great insight of the winner of the last powerball because there is no repeated pattern of long term success.
Look at his claim that Twitter is slow in India because of poorly batched backend calls [1].
He's simply regurgitating what he thinks he heard from others without really understanding how anything works. He knows less about software architecture than an intern picked at random.
Stop repeating this, because Elon had the gist of it correct, if not the specifics.
a) Twitter is atrociously slow for something that displays a mere kilobyte of text at a time.
b) Much of that is because of hundreds of client-server JavaScript requests on first load. Not technically RPCs, but just as slow and looking nearly identical on the network.
c) Most of the rest is because of a thousand microservices chatting away at each other. Not technically client-to-server, but still taking significant time.
Elon accidentally conflated the network path of (b) with the performance issues caused by (c).
They're both bad! They both need fixing! The fact that Musk mixed up doesn't matter.
> Much of that is because of hundreds of client-server JavaScript requests on first load.
Isn't this not true though? Based on the responses to his Tweet only one GraphQL request is made which batches the whole thing.
> Most of the rest is because of a thousand microservices chatting away at each other. Not technically client-to-server, but still taking significant time.
But what does this have to do with India? If the slowness is due to calls between microservices hosted on (from my understanding) their own hardware, why would it matter if the initial GraphQL request comes in from India, since all the rest of the backend requests would be the same?
> his Tweet only one GraphQL request is made which batches the whole thing.
Literally bang in the middle of an F12 network trace showing dozens of requests, mostly JavaScript. Not JSON RPC, per se, but still an overhead taking up seconds, especially on low-end Android devices.
> But what does this have to do with India?
Everything. Nitter uses 40KB of code & data to display the same content that takes Twitter megabytes.
People in subsequent threads have pointed to the gigabytes of "data" usage by the Twitter Android app, which is just absurd for an app that displays primarily text.
It's a bloated pig of an app that performs poorly on 5G networks in the United States, and hence terribly on slow and overloaded networks separated from Twitter's data centres by an ocean.
"It works fine for me" says the engineer connected to the WiFi in Twitter HQ.
> Literally bang in the middle of an F12 network trace showing dozens of requests, mostly JavaScript. Not JSON RPC, per se, but still an overhead taking up seconds, especially on low-end Android devices.
I'm pretty sure that's my point? How are you equating "dozens" to "1200" (or even "hundreds" in your last comment) as though Elon is in the right ballpark?
As for the rest, I don't know what your point is, where did Elon say anything in that thread about how much data they were sending? He's quite literally responding to someone saying it was the amount of JavaScript being downloaded and telling them they're wrong, it's the "1200 RPC calls". I'm pretty sure the point he was attempting to make is that it's slow due to thousands of serial "RPC" calls made between the app and Twitter (which will have a higher RRT to India) but as you've demonstrated that's not what it's doing.
I'm not saying Twitter is well designed, I'm just not pretending like Elon somehow had the right idea when you've had to stretch it this far. If he had a proper technical understanding then we wouldn't have to have such a discussion of what he "actually meant".
That's correct, I am working in mobile world since 2005 and the latency of mobile networks is the most bad thing when you build mobile apps. The more requests you do the more latency you introduce to the user, especially if it's fetching data for UI, even if you do it asynchronously you have to wait for the data to update the UI.
> Much of that is because of hundreds of client-server JavaScript requests on first load. Not technically RPCs, but just as slow and looking nearly identical on the network.
This is not true at all. I have a look and it's not that there are many REST requests it's that the requests send back a load of data. For Example the timeline sends back a 1MB JSON response. It's heavily gzipped so comes in at 100KB over the network but it takes quite a while for the whole request.
In places like india the internet is slow and many people are using VPNs. I emulated this and I can see that over VPN on a slow internet connection it's like 10 seconds to load the home page.
He was right on the details of the two different issues, because those were explained to him.
But he conflated two things that he didn't really understand and reached a completely wrong conclusion. He's shared that conclusion with confidence and never admitted he was wrong. That's a fatal flaw for someone who holds a Chief Engineer title at a rocket company.
He's a CEO who is has been incredibly successful at selling a vision and getting people to do what he wants. He is not an engineer. He should stop role playing as one.
He also doesn't make decisions like this from monologues in his head - he surrounds himself with people having deep expertise and makes bold decisions based on feedback; if something doesn't make sense, they'll stop doing it the next morning. In "normal" corp not only it'll be there 3 years from now, it'll also grow fat around it and spawn other idiotic initiatives with little to no (negative?) value.
SpaceX is subsidised (and so is Tesla) and automotive industry was already in the process of electrifying. Tesla just put pressure to speed it up. Haven't checked but it would not surprises me if Formula E predated Tesla.
Winning government contracts over other competitors is not the same thing as “subsidized”. Otherwise Hilton is subsidized because government employees stay there sometimes.
I get the impression that some government contracts are used as stealth subsidies. And SpaceX, Tesla, and Starlink have benefited from plenty of actual subsidies, too.
To be clear, I'm not implying that's a bad thing. These companies seem like an example of subsidies working as intended, i.e. driving innovation.
Can you give specific examples? Diluting the meaning down to “the government is also one of this company’s customers” just makes it meaningless. That will cover nearly every large company.
In January 2020, Toyota passed the milestone of more than 15 million self-charging hybrid vehicles
If every vehicle sold by Tesla since its inception up to the most recent Tesla sales figures released for Q1 of 2022 are accounted for, there are over 2,645,000 Teslas on the road worldwide
Sure, cheap hybrids. Nobody is buying them because it's their dream car though, it is just affordable and cheap to run. Tesla makes cars that are desirable.
Funny enough it would be hard to find anyone with more CEO experience than Musk. This doesn't mean he does all the management, often the work of these guys is to find the right people to do the management for them.
Yeah he is so smart, he locked himself out in firing spree during some manic phase and then had to beg people he just fired to let him in. If anything, this twitter saga showed serious cracks (that were there before if you looked closely) in his persona. Vengeful, petty childish behavior was there before (ie Musk accusing main Thai cave rescuer for being a pedophile, because he refused his submarine concept? Plenty of similar stories)
Its a matter of approach - if you focus on all his success, you can continue worshiping him as some capitalist messiah. If you focus on bad stuff, he is a fucked up mess to be polite, a bad parent and husband, an even worse human being in general, utterly horrible boss, person with deep mental issues that aren't clearly tackled in appropriate ways.
The truth, somewhere in the middle of those 2 extremes, still ain't that nice IMHO. He burned basically all good PR capital be built over the years, basically nobody sees him now as good person, just another ultra rich a-hole like Bezos that needs to be kept in check. As he will find in following years, people's opinions trickle down to cash flow. If I would be buying an electric car right now (which doesn't make much sense for another decade to me), Tesla would be off the table for example.
Literally his first two companies, Zip2 (CTO) and x.com (CEO), were pure software companies?
Another company he founded, SpaceX, is the first space launch provider to ever achieve propulsive landing and re-use of an orbital-class rocket, a feat which includes some of the hardest software engineering you can do.
Another company he runs, Tesla, is famous for being one of the few car companies that makes software for their cars that people actually want to use.
If a citation is needed, it is a citation to explain how anyone could possibly believe with that track record that Elon Musk doesn't know how software is built.
Knowing how to run a software company and knowing how to build software are two things. The first thing usually implies hiring the right people for the second thing. I’m sure Musk knows at least a bit of that, but everything we see with Twitter is that he’s axing those people at a rate that you can’t keep up hiring at. So there is some obvious disconnect here and I don’t think “Ah, he knows what he is doing “ is a sufficient explanation.
The Zip2 application ran on a single PC. Technology has changed a lot from the early Java days(I think what Zip2 was written in). Perhaps this helps explain some of his public mistakes in understanding the codebase of Twitter.
> SpaceX, is the first space launch provider to ever achieve propulsive landing and re-use of an orbital-class rocket, a feat which includes some of the hardest software engineering you can do.
Not to be dismissive of landing an orbital rocket, but that's mostly a feat of aerospace engineering and control theory. On the software engineering side of things for SpaceX I think their work around CFD would be the more impressive feat from a computer science perspective.
Elon just made sweeping changes that cratered their ad revenue and took an axe to engineering teams all over the company. He did this in the lead up to the holiday season which has been the most profitable part of the year with advertisers pouring a significant portion of their yearly ad budgets into ad buys. Even if he was 100% correct that all of this was bloat, it was a monumentally stupid idea to make these changes now of all times. I would have expected him to at least have enough of an understanding of software engineering to know that deprecating systems and cutting out bloat needs to happen carefully with the talent onhand to be able to back out changes and manage the transition seamlessly. Fundamentally the risks involved are more financially impactful than the price of keeping headcount around for another year to do it safely.
Twitter hasn't even had a major incident yet and just the revenue loss from advertisers pausing ad campaigns probably already offsets all the savings they were hoping for in 4 - 6 months once the layoffs finally start bringing down staff costs.
Look, I actually do agree that Gwynne Shotwell has been a key component in making SpaceX successful / curbing Musk's worst impulses / etc.
But don't you think it's strange that (assuming so much of SpaceX's success is owed to Shotwell) nothing like what SpaceX has achieved was achieved at her previous gigs? But then she goes to work for Elon Musk and suddenly...
Regardless, the point I'm making is not "Elon Musk wrote all the software at his various companies himself" but rather "Elon Musk founding / running / exiting a variety of companies in very diverse fields but all of which are good at software is a very strong indicator that he understands software and how it is built".
Meanwhile, the "he doesn't understand software" corpus of evidence basically amounts to "I think he's doing a bad job of running Twitter in the handful of weeks he has been there. I think this even though I have very limited insight into what is actually happening at Twitter, besides what is being fed to the media by disgruntled employees who probably hated Elon Musk before the acquisition and their subsequent firing".
