OV9

The 40 hour full time in the office model is dead. He'd be better off down-sizing the premises he has and save costs that way rather than alienating and probably losing the staff he's got left. It's still very much an employees market and good devs are very much a premium commodity.

Gavster wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:09 am

tim wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 8:09 am https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/234 ... ng-q-and-a

Read the full transcript, it's very interesting I think.

That is very interesting, I like the way he works.

It's quite incredible that Elon is getting so much hate. He has taken over from a board/staff of people who had taken Twitter to a place where it is facing $1bn+ in annual losses at the beginning of a recession. He took over from a massive bunch of failures. Yet, people still seem to think Elon is the bad guy, rather than the massively bloated, overstaffed, underperforming group of people that built a failing company.

yeah, who cares about human rights or financial regulations, he's a hero!

Delphi wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:33 am The 40 hour full time in the office model is dead. He'd be better off down-sizing the premises he has and save costs that way rather than alienating and probably losing the staff he's got left. It's still very much an employees market and good devs are very much a premium commodity.

This...

We've moved to a permanent Hybrid Model and only have office space for about 60% of the team.

Gavster wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:09 am

tim wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 8:09 am https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/234 ... ng-q-and-a

Read the full transcript, it's very interesting I think.

That is very interesting, I like the way he works.

It's quite incredible that Elon is getting so much hate. He has taken over from a board/staff of people who had taken Twitter to a place where it is facing $1bn+ in annual losses at the beginning of a recession. He took over from a massive bunch of failures. Yet, people still seem to think Elon is the bad guy, rather than the massively bloated, overstaffed, underperforming group of people that built a failing company.

Why did he pay so much for it if it's loss making? He clearly didn't have a plan, had massive regret but was forced to buy it by the courts. As a result he's been obliged to borrow to fund the purchase, which is the main reason it's now loss-making; it wasn't in debt up to its eyeballs before the takeover. It was profitable 2017-2020 and only posted a paper loss in 2021 due to one-off provision for litigation. Sadly Musk has caused revenues to fall so he's having to make immediate unplanned cuts just to keep up and stop his funders stepping in.

He's not the messiah, he's a very silly boy.

Delphi wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:33 am The 40 hour full time in the office model is dead. He'd be better off down-sizing the premises he has and save costs that way rather than alienating and probably losing the staff he's got left. It's still very much an employees market and good devs are very much a premium commodity.

Is that the case in the US though? Their view of employment rights, and reasonable working, is really skewed. It's been interesting over the years hearing my wife discuss certain aspects of the employment rights at places she's worked - often globals with offices everywhere. One common thread has been how utterly awful it sounds to work in the US.

tim wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:17 am I largely think the hate is because these same people wouldn't have the balls to do what he does publically with companies like this. I find it and him really fascinating.

This. I watched the BBC programme about him as well and found it utterly fascinating to see how he got where he did, his background, and what he's managed to achieve.

I do think that what he's achieved would only really be possible somewhere like America though.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 am
Is that the case in the US though? Their view of employment rights, and reasonable working, is really skewed. It's been interesting over the years hearing my wife discuss certain aspects of the employment rights at places she's worked - often globals with offices everywhere. One common thread has been how utterly awful it sounds to work in the US.

I think they're slowly waking up to the fact that workers in the US are getting royally fucked over when it comes to worker's rights. But you're right, it's a fucking awful place to work.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:26 am Just so I'm clear - he spent $44 billion Dollars on a company who economic picture is, frankly, dire ...

He did, he tried to back out presumably when he saw the finances but he’d already pushed himself too far down the road to stop.

This is the person that people are trying to claim as some sort of polymath super genius

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:09 am

dinny_g wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:26 am Just so I'm clear - he spent $44 billion Dollars on a company who economic picture is, frankly, dire ...

He did, he tried to back out presumably when he saw the finances but he’d already pushed himself too far down the road to stop.

This is the person that people are trying to claim as some sort of polymath super genius

It is possible to be both y'know. Not that I'm saying he is a genius. But he hasn't fluked his way to where he is.

I've known some astoundingly clever and gifted people, but many of them have also been utter fuckwits as well

That’s the thing though, I’m sure he’s very clever in some field.s He has in the past done some quite cool stuff.

The last 5 or so years have seen him weigh in noisily on many subjects he clearly knows fuck all about and this time it might end up killing a whole company.

Delphi wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:04 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 am
Is that the case in the US though? Their view of employment rights, and reasonable working, is really skewed. It's been interesting over the years hearing my wife discuss certain aspects of the employment rights at places she's worked - often globals with offices everywhere. One common thread has been how utterly awful it sounds to work in the US.

I think they're slowly waking up to the fact that workers in the US are getting royally fucked over when it comes to worker's rights. But you're right, it's a fucking awful place to work.

The one advantage that the workers do have is that they can potentially be re-employed elsewhere within a couple of days. As there is relatively little risk in taking someone on (they can be got rid of within a week with no severance requirements or blow back) people are willing to take a punt on people without protracted interviews etc.
I still prefer our situation.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:15 am That’s the thing though, I’m sure he’s very clever in some field.s He has in the past done some quite cool stuff.

The last 5 or so years have seen him weigh in noisily on many subjects he clearly knows fuck all about and this time it might end up killing a whole company.

Judging by what's going on at Facebook it was going to go anyway, he just may not be able (despite his bluff and bluster) be able to do anything about it.

Oh fully, there was always going to be a crash for web2 as the money is based on nothing.

It’s just funny to watch Elon dismantle twitter by accident

Why did he pay so much for it if it's loss making?

I'm sure this is rhetorical, but the answer of course is that he's an idiot who acts impulsively

Musk isn't a genius, he's a conman, a blagger of the highest order

Lies and empty promises, hoovered up to whoops and cheers by his followers

He's literally on film, with a straight face, saying he "knows more about manufacturing than anyone alive on earth" - I love the way he felt the need to qualify that statement with "on earth"...

Ego?

Much?

For balance, anyone why thinks he is a genius, should maybe take a look at this:

DaveE wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:26 am

Why did he pay so much for it if it's loss making?

I'm sure this is rhetorical, but the answer of course is that he's an idiot who acts impulsively

It was indeed, but the thing is: it wasn't loss-making other than the (substantial) provision for one-off litigation in the 2021 accounts. Musk has managed to cause it to become loss-making by reducing the gross revenue and increasing the costs by loading it with debt. That's why he wanted to pay big money for it: because it was a profitable business.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:12 am I've known some astoundingly clever and gifted people, but many of them have also been utter fuckwits as well

I know - look at me...

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:23 am Oh fully, there was always going to be a crash for web2 as the money is based on nothing.

It’s just funny to watch Elon dismantle twitter by accident

It is.

I think it's funny that ultimately the money go round is based on the trade of tangible goods and services. Digital assets rely on this too. Data on customers ultimately relies on them purchasing a tangible product or a service, you can all the data on them you want and process it any which way you want but if they don't have money to spend on a tangible product and buy it ultimately the data is worthless.

If people have no money due to conditions that have come about potentially due to information propagated because of policies of certain platforms they can't buy said products or services no matter how many adverts are served up to them and ad revenue is pulled.
It's like because of their policies they've bought about their own destruction which is funnier although quite depressing as the impact globally of said policies are huge.

The only real choice if they want to survive is to become one of the above tangible services and become a subscription model, where they are the product rather than the user.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:40 am

DaveE wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:26 am

Why did he pay so much for it if it's loss making?

I'm sure this is rhetorical, but the answer of course is that he's an idiot who acts impulsively

It was indeed, but the thing is: it wasn't loss-making other than the (substantial) provision for one-off litigation in the 2021 accounts. Musk has managed to cause it to become loss-making by reducing the gross revenue and increasing the costs by loading it with debt. That's why he wanted to pay big money for it: because it was a profitable business.

this

He also paid quite a bit over just because he wanted the number 420 to be part of it, because memes. So he offered $54.20 per share.

Mito Man wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:50 am He also paid quite a bit over just because he wanted the number 420 to be part of it, because memes. So he offered $54.20 per share.