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

Thoughts about Twitter

nolancaudill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#191

Post by f1shy »

tomlue wrote: post #11

I don't work at a giant company, but I'm curious: > Anyone that has worked on large, complex system knows that the margin of error in uptime and downtime is often whether the right person is within arms’ reach of their laptop. Is this true? Shouldn't giant tech companies obsess about reducing the need for human intervention?

I have worked in companies that it was true. And others where it was not. Even in one company we moved from not true to true, in about 8 years (there was of course not a hard cut).

The companies where it was not true, was a pleasure to work in. The management, from C-suits downwards knew what they were doing. In the others, it was a total chaos.

Of course, if everything is fixed with duct tape, you need firemen ready to act. If everything is solid and robust, there can be small outages, but nothing too critical.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#192

Post by wnevets »

throwaway82388 wrote: post #183
wnevets wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That may or may not be true, it's all unclear. It has already been proven Twitter will stop being the Twitter its users have enjoyed for the past decade. You are free to argue Twitter will be better for it but there is absolutely no disputing the old Twitter is dead.

I haven't heard a single proclamation on this that isn't likely to be reversed at some point in the near future. People may quit using Twitter in protest and come back in a week. Or they may all leave for good. Or they may join mastodon, or whatever. Remember the mass Facebook departure to ello? The point I was making is that nobody seems to think any particular thing, other than that which can be post-rationalized f…

> Sure. QED. But not related to anything I wrote.

That just means what you wrote is not related to anything I wrote

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#194

Post by parrellel »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #97
sylens wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an intellectually dishonest argument. Everybody wants peace. Peace is a good thing. But what most people agree on is that you don't give an autocrat anything they want just for the promise of peace. Most people remember that lesson from 1938.

You are just arguing methods, I am arguing absolutes. I have no idea what the best way to achieve peace on an international scale, so my argument is pure because I don't pretend to know.

You're arguing in defense of Musk's proposed peace, others are arguing that his suggestion was not peace, but rather appeasement.

We generally know how Chamberlain's whole deal turned out.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#195

Post by watwut »

baryphonic wrote: post #125
seydor wrote: post #47

The deconstruction has begun. Twitter management is too rightwing to last. Soon the MSM will pick up the story and will suggest the right alternative to twitter that you can use.

Not sure where you got "rightwing" from. David Sacks is to the right, Elon is center-left, and Jason Calcanis is a bigtime lib. For the past three days, rightwing Twitter has been screaming that Elon has "caved" and so on because Trump, Alex Jones and a few others haven't been unbanned. (Personally, I'd like to see the Babylon Bee brought back as a gesture of good faith, pun intended.) How is the combination of those…

Musk is not center left. The most radical and literally proviolence people pressuring you don't make you center left

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#196

Post by tptacek »

WorldMaker wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Essentializing incompetence, implying that he's incompetent at everything, that's foolish. But the supposition that he's incapable of being incompetent at Twitter because of his successes elsewhere has already been disproven.

It's possibly not that foolish depending on how hard you believe the Peter Principle applies to billionaires. Musk didn't start Tesla, he swooped in and meddled exactly like Twitter, because he had extra money and wanted to swing it around. Is picking a good bet, one that survives your meddling, a skill or just luck? It's possible to believe the Peter Principle applies and it was entirely luck.

I don't care how instrumental he was to Tesla, because it doesn't have anything to do with how successful he'll be with his stated plans for Twitter, a company he desperately tried to avoid acquiring but was forced by his own mistakes.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#197

Post by microtherion »

friedman23 wrote: post #45
grumpitron wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction - HE forced himself to buy it by signing a binding contract to buy it.

No. Not even semantically correct. If he didn't want to do something and the other party in the negotiation used the legal system to make him do it he was forced by someone else to do it. Anyway, it's beside the point. Elon OWNS twitter. Do you all understand what ownership means? Like how you own a phone? If he wants to smash his new toy into the ground and break it that's his prerogative. Employees need to stop del…

> If he didn't want to do something and the other party in the negotiation used the legal system to make him do it he was forced by someone else to do it.

The complication here is that his offer was so outlandishly high that he essentially tied Twitter management's hands. If they had not sued him, they would almost certainly be subject to litigation from their own shareholders, because not doing everything to sell at this price would have amounted to corporate mismanagement (In practice, top management gets a lot of leeway from the courts when it comes to maximizing shareholder value, but I can't imagine leaving a 30%+ markup over the current stock price on the table would have passed muster).

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#198

Post by macmcirish »

ricardo81 wrote: post #188
macmcirish wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don’t troll here. If there is something that x is referring to that is not wage, then please enlighten us because I honestly cannot read it as any other way. There are no realistic values of x for x^2 that work with this argument.

I'm not trolling. My basic point was that people in SV make orders of magnitude more money than the average person. But if we want to be pedantic, you don't know X so you can't refute. If OP wants to say I don't know what exponents are, that's on them. The whole thing stands.

Your last comment literally says you were “trolling a bit”.

I don’t think you’re having this conversation in good faith and I’m going to stop interacting because of it.

Re: Thoughts about Twitter

#199

Post by xiphias2 »

baryphonic wrote: post #125
seydor wrote: post #47

The deconstruction has begun. Twitter management is too rightwing to last. Soon the MSM will pick up the story and will suggest the right alternative to twitter that you can use.

Not sure where you got "rightwing" from. David Sacks is to the right, Elon is center-left, and Jason Calcanis is a bigtime lib. For the past three days, rightwing Twitter has been screaming that Elon has "caved" and so on because Trump, Alex Jones and a few others haven't been unbanned. (Personally, I'd like to see the Babylon Bee brought back as a gesture of good faith, pun intended.) How is the combination of those…

I'm not sure if Elon is considered as center-left anymore.

I know I was center-left for a long time, but the same values that I had 10 years ago as center-left are considered center-right at this time. I believe it's the same with Elon.

Post reply on HN