Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#231

Post by georgemcbay »

starkd wrote: post #212
giaour wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wasn't twitter supposed to stop working by now? They are still functioning, despite the layoffs. Maybe it worked? I still expect it to stop working gradually, then all at once. Saying that the fact that Twitter hasn't collapsed yet means the previous staffing level was not justified is a bit like saying you shouldn't have paid a builder to put in a foundation because your house hasn't fallen down yet.

I don't think anyone is truly shocked by the notion that Twitter is over-staffed with a lot of fat it can cut. They were not exactly employing a lot of "builders", as they had not updated any new features for quite some time.

This reply seems to be assuming (like Musk seems to have done when he came in with the kitchen sink) that the only jobs of relevance there are engineers and product folks building new features yet the loss of their important revenue streams that are causing an existential crisis for the company seem to be primarily about losing people with "softer" jobs like compliance and advertiser relations.

I'm sure there was some fat that could have been cut away from Twitter pre-Musk but its pretty clear the attempt to do it was made with a chainsaw and not a scalpel.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#232

Post by rchaud »

kibwen wrote: post #16
MrMan wrote: post #6

it should be easy to recapitalize Twitter using sales of Tesla stock, so I cant believe its an actual shortage of cash. Probably trying to game the litigation cycle and pay at the very last minute? But to what end, it seems like a doomed game to play, you either have money coming in or you dont.

Tesla stock is down 69% (yes, really) over the past 12 months, and part of what's triggering the price collapse is Musk's own sell-off. When a CEO divests from their company, markets historically do not react with confidence. The more Elon Musk sells, the less value he has and the more stock he'll have to sell the next time that he wants to leverage his wealth to buy something pointless.

> Tesla stock is down 69% (yes, really)

CEO to employee compensation ratio: 420:1

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#233

Post by rchaud »

metadat wrote: post #120
starkd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is their media department.

Parent is likely making a referencing the fact that Musk obliterated Twitter's employee base to such a majot extent there is literally nobody left in the corporate communications department.

I think the original message is referencing Twitter polls.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#234

Post by dragonwriter »

georgemcbay wrote: post #231
starkd wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is truly shocked by the notion that Twitter is over-staffed with a lot of fat it can cut. They were not exactly employing a lot of "builders", as they had not updated any new features for quite some time.

This reply seems to be assuming (like Musk seems to have done when he came in with the kitchen sink) that the only jobs of relevance there are engineers and product folks building new features yet the loss of their important revenue streams that are causing an existential crisis for the company seem to be primarily about losing people with "softer" jobs like compliance and advertiser relations. I'm sure there was som…

> the loss of their important revenue streams that are causing an existential crisis for the company seem to be primarily about losing people with "softer" jobs like compliance and advertiser relations.

Its mostly related to gaining a new CEO, and the resulting instability imposed by that CEO, not the presence or absence of particular subordinate staff. (Heck, a lot of it happened based on the discussions and purchase offer created uncertaintu, when all the staff were still there.)

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#235

Post by krapp »

rchaud wrote: post #228
pipeline_peak wrote: post #33

> Refusing to provide toilet paper or pay rent, but employees can’t work remotely. Why do people worship this clown again?

He's kryptonite for entire swathes of the nerd demographic. 1) The Dawkins-pilled atheist who subconsciously misses the messianic words of charismatic preachers 2) The well-to-do Burning Man hippie that remembers Exxon Valdez and Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill and has sworn off ICE vehicles. These ones are most likely jumping ship these days, unless they belong to... 3) The "objective rationalist" who prefers facts to f…

You're not wrong but kryptonite would be repelling them not drawing them in, which I think is what you mean.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#236

Post by gitfan86 »

rchaud wrote: post #224
gitfan86 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real Estate is a sketchy business. Musk is not going to stand out as an especially bad tenant. And if you dig into the history of these landlords you shouldn't be surprised to find out they have also fucked people over

Quite remarkable levels of whataboutery here. So a generalization like "landlords bad" makes it OK for a business not paying their rent?

Is it "OK" that NBA players commit fouls on each other? Shouldn't they be honorable and just play the ball?

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#237

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

kibwen wrote: post #196
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol no they won't. They are desperate for anyone they can get

It's true that commercial landlords are desperate, but even the most desperate landlord isn't making any money if their tenant isn't paying. That is, unless the business model is "rent to Elon Musk, then make a profit on the lawsuit when he inevitably stiffs you".

This is some sort of dispute, I'm not sure over what but it's not related to solvency.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#238

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

nickthegreek wrote: post #193
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't going to go bankrupt. But they have been a money losing operation 14 of 15 years

They now have $1b in debt interest due every year.

Yeah but they also cut two thirds of thier staff and have cut other costs and will continue to do so.

People here hate musk but Twitter will no go out of business.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#239

Post by MrOwnPut »

gamblor956 wrote: post #198
93po wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the same thing when a Tesla car catches fire after an accident. It's front page international news. I saw an F150 on fire on the side of the highway a few weeks ago. I'm sure there's a large public outcry about Ford as well.

F150s have gasoline, which is known to catch fire. In fact, that's kind of the whole point of gasoline: it it flammable. With a car fire, it is simply that the fire has escaped the part of the vehicle where the fire is supposed to be contained. EVs are not supposed to catch fire, thus it is news when they do.

Lithium isn't supposed to be flammable but gasoline is in your mind? What kind of logic is that?

Both are flammable and both take as many precautions as possible (with our knowledge) to not be in a car, but still can in extreme conditions (crashes).

The main difference is chemical fires are harder to put out, but you just have to carry the right suppressant.

But with Tesla, yes they make the news than other cars, including other EVs, because... politics.

Post reply on HN