zlacker

>>ZacnyL+(OP)
I think we're about at the point where the people who predicted chaos at twitter after Elon basically fired most of the experienced engineers have been proven correct. The duct tape is all coming apart at the seams now.

It isn't quite as decisive as a submarine imploding, and ceasing to exist, but it has turned into a brightly burning tirefire.

>>lamont+yx
I have to disagree. If you honestly take the emotion and politics out of this and evaluate on merit alone, what do you think?

Twitter wasn’t healthy before Musk bought it. It wasn’t a thriving business, it was a very old, very large startup still struggling to find market fit and loosing a lot of money.

Also, it wasn’t a thriving product. It was stagnant.

Since Twitter was purchased, the amount of features they have shipped has been impressive. They’ve shipped a lot of features and extended the platform a lot. To your point they have also done this with far less engineers than before.

Regarding any downtime, everyone has downtime. Google, Amazon, Meta… the best of the best still have it regardless of money or manpower.

Considering what that team has done with less resources, I think the achievement still pretty good. What do you think?

>>shon+9E
> [...] it was a very old, very large startup [...]

Can we start to call companies with almost 18 years old just "companies" and not startup anymore?

>>felipe+tF
Totally agree with you. It was only a startup in the sense that it was still struggling to find profitability / solid market fit.

As opposed to something like Amazon which grew and grew for nearly 20 years, always burning more cash than it made to fuel growth, but they understood the business really well and when they decided to optimize for profitability rather than growth, never never gone back.