this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
1043 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2763 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really dislike Musk, but I find it hard to criticize this when it generally worked.
The platform formerly known as Twitter is still running, and there’s no more $100 million/year data center.
6-9 months would have meant $50-75 million dollars. I don’t know what the outages and re-engineering ended up costing them, but that’s a ton of money.
First of all, Musk burdened twitter with a level of debt that cost (last estimate that I saw) $1B/year to service. This data center would not have been a problem if he had actually been a good businessman and, you know, didn’t massively overpay with a debt-funded takeover while waiving due diligence on a company he didn’t want in a market he completely doesn’t understand. He set fire to $44B. Twitter’s current valuation has been estimated to be as low as $4B. I personally think that’s low, but the May estimate was $15B (which didn’t include the loss of branding hit).
So his recklessness and complete lack of understanding combined with his overconfidence and incompetence made the $100M savings into peanuts compared to what he destroyed by pulling exactly the same kind of move throughout the business.
Now combine that with the very probable fact that this saved no where near $100M. Shitty shifting of servers breaks hardware. They weren’t prepped to receive them at the destination. They ended up with major drops in service, including Elmo having to shut twitter down for a weekend because they couldn’t handle the traffic. Now he’s whining about “scraping” and trying to squeeze blood from a stone in the face of advertisers abandoning him.
This in no way generally worked. Things are absolutely falling apart around their ears. I’ve stopped even trying to follow twitter links because they work less than half the time since I don’t have an account.
Elon is Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss with a lot of money and a PR firm.
Dilbert's boss is lazy, Musk is full of passionate intensity.
My first gig out of college in the Valley was working with (later for) a relatively charismatic "I know better" untreated bipolar guy. This dude actually had the chops, he was actually smarter than you. His demos and product ideas were amazing, legit visionary. Inspirational.
But gods it was soul-destroying to try to work for the guy, he kept pulling exactly this kind of "it's not that complicated!" stunt, changing plans on a whim, editing history to make himself consistent, hair-trigger switching between praise and abuse...
It got a lot of good work out of me, I learned a lot, I was well-compensated, but I now that I know the signs I'm never working for a person like that again.
(see also: the subject of another fawning Isaacson hagiography, Steve Jobs)