Easy choice Elon
In essence you're asking your few remaining employees to work 3 times longer for the same pay or be fired. That's an easy choice to make, for me at least.
Following a public engineering spat and multiple firings, Twitter CEO Elon Musk has issued an ultimatum to his employees: get hardcore or get out of my way. It turns out he was not talking about punk rock, or road construction, but the vision of a new Twitter, the 2.0 iteration of the pioneering social media platform he was …
Darn straight. Musk's 'ultimatum' is essentially:
"Work harder, for free with no additional pay, so as to enable & justify *my* costs and the necessity *for me* to recoup my costs to the point that I eventually grow richer thanks to this acquisition.
You? You'll sacrifice for my benefit or leave."
Therefore, the answer from anyone with a pulse should be:
"Thank you, I'll leave now with your severance. Good luck, you'll be needing it."
Another thought on the H1B visa issue, assuming that they really do have a large number of H1B holders (of which I have no idea): To sponsor these visas, an employer must "justify the exclusive need for this foreign worker/visa holder and prove that the task cannot be accomplished by a local citizen who may either be unavailable or not qualified, either academically or professionally."
If I were wanting to raise a fuss I would point at a massive layoff of qualified staff as being amble proof that such a need doesn't exist at Twitter.
Musk bought Twitter.
Musk fired half of Twitter's employees.
Musk delivered an ultimatum to the remaining half to sign up to indefinite servitude, quit if you don't like it.
Attrition from exhaustion / disgust / insanity digests Musk's version from the inside.
Fired employees start their own Twitter-equivalent, taking on those who reject the Musk-flavoured alternate reality.
This is Theseus' Ship, isn't it?
I'm pretty sure that he's just trying to (temporarily and without any thought as to how sustainable it is) reduce operating costs, increase profits, and ultimately take it public again (this time saddled with the debt he used to buy it) and hype it to make more than he bought it for. It's basically the world's biggest flip project, and he'll probably destroy Twitter on the way.
take it public again (this time saddled with the debt he used to buy it)
This is the common issue with taking a company private. The sequence seems to go something like this:
1. Buy the company with a large loan to finance it.
2. Remove non-revenue parts of the business (typically the new product/feature development)
3. For a while the company has less costs but the same income so makes a greater profit
4. Float the company again with the "new improved" profits.
5. The public company is saddled with the repayment of the debt raised to take it private
6. The lack of new products/features (because new product/feature development stopped some time ago) means the income declines over time until the company can't afford to repay loan, and declares bankruptcy.
I've given up defending the guy. I used to be hopeful that he would allow free speech on the platform and not suppress voices which go against "the narrative", even though he's a bit of knob. (a lot actually).
Now it seems he deserves to fail, as he expects everyone to work as hard as he does (but without getting the monies).
I really hope the next person is hot on free speech (that doesn't mean consequence free / hate speech) and we can be allowed to have an open and honest debate about certain things (mostly things since 2020) on a large enough platform.
I won't be holding my breath though, and I suppose many will simply move to Parler / Gettr / Mastodon / Rumble, and will end up in their own smaller filter bubbles, which will make discussions a much more pointless exercise.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
as he expects everyone to work as hard as he does
Some things to keep in mind; the hours he spends at the office are HIS choice. He can plan ahead for it. He has complete control over expectations. He has assistants to get his meals, bring him clean clothes. If he needs to shower the company will get him a nearby hotel room and an executive car to drive him there and back.
When he spends the afternoon on Twitter trolling people, or playing Kerbal Space Program, he is 'working'.
"not suppress voices which go against "the narrative",
You're seriously saying that with a serious face on, aren't you?
A incorrect analysis from the facts is not 'against the narrative', it's just incorrect. Whether that's on evolution, UFOs, deep state conspiracies, effectiveness of vaccines....
That does not follow. If there is indeed a 'narrative,' or official version of reality, then the mere that a belief that contradicts this narrative is untrue does not exclude it from being 'against the narrative.' Added to this, there have been plenty of cases where the 'narrative' was false and the 'fringe' belief was actually true. The only way to eliminate error is through rational discussion. That requires a stance of fallibilism in regard to your own belief system. You can't just say "my belief is reality, and anyone who disagrees must be silenced because they are insane or evil!'
This is essentially the justification for free speech argued by John Stuart Mill, who warned about the dangers of groupthink and mob prejudice.
"The narrative" I'm talking about are :-
That lockdowns were a wholly good thing,
The virus came from a wet market and not a lab leak.
The non Covid excess deaths we're seeing right now are caused by climate change, and not by the hangover from lockdown combined with vaccine damage.
If you disagreed with the first two in 2020 you would get your account suspended on many platforms, or just get your post taken down. The last one seems to be what is being peddled right now.
I would just like to be allowed to discuss these things openly.
"That lockdowns were a wholly good thing,
The virus came from a wet market and not a lab leak.
The non Covid excess deaths we're seeing right now are caused by climate change, and not by the hangover from lockdown combined with vaccine damage."
OK I see the basic issue you have with "the narrative" - you believe that the worlds' scientists all colluded on a fake virus to keep us all locked down because.....?
Lockdowns were there to limit the spread of a highly contagious and relatively dangerous virus FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO CURE. No doubt you said the same rubbish about masks. What "vaccine damage"? A tiny number of people have had a serious reaction to the various vaccines. Millions died of covid. But vaccine damage....right
Oh and climate change denial? Cool. What about 5g? Come on there's a whole raft of crackpot conspiracy theories you haven't mentioned yet.
It was all part of a plan to take down the orange man and to make themselves richer. Just look at how the dems behaved early on in 2020. Blocking people from China was racist, come to chinatown as it is perfectly safe, go to mardi gras as it is safe. Once the virus was well established they changed tune to 'wahhh... this is Trumps fault'.
Wow you are making some pretty amazing mental leaps with what you think is going on in my mind.
I don't think the world's scientists all colluded. Many thousands of them put forward the idea that we should use focused protection, and the damage caused by lockdowns is going to be at least as bad as the harm reduction. This is proving to be true, surely you can see that now? Those scientists were shouted down and smeared. You do realise the "cost of living" crisis is largely "cost of lockdown", or perhaps you think China's zero covid approach is the way to go, because that's really not working out so well. The problem with lockdowns is they cause lots of smaller problems, compared to a disease which is one big problem so it's had to compare them.
No I don't believe masks do very much to stop an airbourne virus, and if they did Scotland would have had a much better time of it when they carried on enforcing them when England stopped (and most people pretty quickly stopped wearing them). I do believe that Covid was a dangerous disease for some, although with Omicron not so much. However for most people under a certain age it was never really that dangerous.
"Lockdowns were there to limit the spread"... but they really didn't make that much difference. You know which country has the lowest excess mortality in the West in the last couple of years? It's Sweden. Let that sink in.
Who said anything about climate change denying? I'm simply saying it's not likely as an explanation for the current excess deaths we're seeing right now. More people die from being cold than from heat.
I don't have a problem with 5G, or with the earth being spherical.
Regarding vaccine damage, I was told it was "safe and effective", and so I took two shots. Since then the AZ one I took has been withdrawn quietly because of the risk of blood clots. You don't think it's been withdrawn? Try getting an AZ shot now, you can't. So, it's not "safe". It's also not very effective, as it seems to wear off after a few months. I feel like I've been mis sold. I also know several people who suffered pretty nasty side effects in my immediate close family (wife, father-in-law) and friends, so it does feel like the effects are being down played. Why would they do that though? Because money. Lots and lots of money.
You seem to trust the government and the media, but you realise they lied to us in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s? If you don't realise this, you really have not been paying attention to history. If you think they aren't lying to us now, you are pretty naive.
"This is proving to be true, surely you can see that now?"
With the benefit of hindsight and time to mull over the historical evidence, anyone with a functioning brain can see what ought to have been done. To formulate a national Covid response, to pick last weeks lottery numbers, to decide to say yes when that girl you like asks you in for a coffee and you say no because you're young and naive enough to think they actually are just asking you in for a coffee and you aren't particularly thirsty...
Not *quite* so easy to get it right when you're staring down the barrel in realtime wondering WTF to do next, and definitely not at all easy to know at the time which experts had managed to predict the least worst course of action to take, so I don't think it's particularly fair or reasonable to castigate governments who opted for different courses of action, at least not in those early days.
Anyone who *continues* to adopt a policy which is clearly at odds with reality (yes, China, we're all looking at you right now) is entirely fair game for criticism, however...
"Regarding vaccine damage, I was told it was "safe and effective", and so I took two shots. Since then the AZ one I took has been withdrawn quietly because of the risk of blood clots. You don't think it's been withdrawn? Try getting an AZ shot now, you can't. So, it's not "safe". It's also not very effective, as it seems to wear off after a few months. I feel like I've been mis sold. I also know several people who suffered pretty nasty side effects in my immediate close family (wife, father-in-law) and friends, so it does feel like the effects are being down played. Why would they do that though? Because money. Lots and lots of money."
In contrast, no-one I know, including myself, suffered anything more than the expected side effects from our AZ shots, so it does feel like the effects are being reported entirely reasonably to me. And according to the NHS website, it remains approved for use in the UK, so how certain are you that it's actually been *withdrawn* (a quite specific action with certain negative connotations) as opposed to merely being no longer offered due to the availability of more effective alternatives that've come along since?
As for "safe and effective" in general when applied to drugs - when was the last time you read the patient information leaflet for *any* medicine you've taken? If you think the more damaging side-effects of the AZ vaccine (particularly given the rate at which they occurred) means that calling it "safe and effective" is misleading, then which drugs currently on the market *would* you apply that description to?
"Not *quite* so easy to get it right when you're staring down the barrel in realtime wondering WTF to do next, and definitely not at all easy to know at the time which experts had managed to predict the least worst course of action to take, so I don't think it's particularly fair or reasonable to castigate governments who opted for different courses of action, at least not in those early days."
Governments pretty much all had pandemic plans, written with the benefit of many years' experience. In March 2020 most of them did the opposite to what those plans stipulated - for example, face nappies and lockdowns were not recommended in most plans as they were known to be ineffective and cause massive damage. Two and a half years on, the startistics show that they were ineffective and the massive damage (economic issues being a major one) are becoming increasingly obvious.
"Governments pretty much all had pandemic plans, written with the benefit of many years' experience. In March 2020 most of them did the opposite to what those plans stipulated - for example, face nappies and lockdowns were not recommended in most plans as they were known to be ineffective and cause massive damage. Two and a half years on, the startistics show that they were ineffective and the massive damage (economic issues being a major one) are becoming increasingly obvious."
Er, no. The UK government had no such plans - Exercise Cygnus in 2016 highlighted the need for planning (in the case of Cygnus against a flu epidemic, covid was unknown), which the government happily ignored.
Face nappies? Is that really the level of your intellect? Masks were not designed to keep you personally safe, as the virus can happily enter via your eyes as easily as your mouth and nose, but to limit the spread of the virus by you. If everyone wore the, the spread was limited.
What massive damage did masks cause? Lockdowns were damaging, yes - at the peak of covid the mortality rate was around 2%, without lockdowns we would have been looking at more than a million deaths in the UK alone. Still, that's ok as long as you're fine, eh?
Masks were not recommended in the early stages by WHO because (and you can look this up for yourself if you like) they were not likely to be used correctly and create a false sense safety, meaning people would forget basic things like hand washing etc, not because they were "damaging".
I'm still astonished by the levels of utter idiocy displayed here.
"without lockdowns we would have been looking at more than a million deaths in the UK alone"
Speculation based on what SAGE have since admitted to be deliberately and incredibly pessimistic models as the govt wanted the results to show lockdowns were needed.
"What massive damage did masks cause?"
Children's development especially in speech and general language seriously impacted? Children now mortally scared of people without masks after being told for 2 years that the sky is falling and that they will kill granny if they don't wear their face nappy and now suffering from even more depression and anxiety than their social media centred lives already cause?
Adults are able (mostly) to understand risk. Is it safe to cross the road at this place and time? Is this ladder safe to climb up? Kids have to learn it from us. And we have taught them that we are irrationally afraid of something because the TV says so.
"Children's development especially in speech and general language seriously impacted? Children now mortally scared of people without masks after being told for 2 years that the sky is falling and that they will kill granny if they don't wear their face nappy and now suffering from even more depression and anxiety than their social media centred lives already cause?"
And you have citations for this drivel I assume? No? Colour me shocked....
I work in schools. No children are terrified of people without masks. Sorry, "face nappy". I assume you have no idea what the point of masks is, and like all the rest of the half educated you just pick up the most ridiculous conspiracy nonsense and run with it.
"Speculation based on what SAGE have since admitted to be deliberately and incredibly pessimistic "
Nope. Nice try though. This figure was based on the number of people with covid actually dying from it at the time.
Your evidence for them admitting it was deliberately false is.....?
"I'm still astonished by the levels of utter idiocy displayed here."
This is the trouble debating with Covidians - they just resort to petty abuse.
As regards pandemic plans - see here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf
Yes, it's for influenza but in terms of practical responses this is little different to a virus which is similar in its impacts and outcomes.
The word 'Lockdown' does not appear anywhere in the document, and it also includes this: "Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use in this setting."
Operation Cygnus may have identified some changes which could be made (so far as I am aware its full outcome has never been made public, only some summaries) but it did not recommend a complete reversal of existing pandemic plans.
Parliament is of course now trying to re-write history to cover up having done the reverse of existing plans, e.g.:
If you read this is doesn't actually say that the government was completely unprepared to implement the existing pandemic plan - it says that they weren't prepared for the responses which they actually took in 2020, e.g.
"For example, Government lacked detailed plans on shielding, employment support schemes and managing the disruption to schooling."
Well, why would they have prepared for this given that these measures were only ever envsaged as being small-scale, if at all. There had never been any question of applying them across all or a large part of the population so naturally they hadn't prepared for them - why would they?
"This is the trouble debating with Covidians - they just resort to petty abuse."
It is a common defence mechanism from certain ideological groups. They have no factual basis for their worldview so cannot successfully debate their point, it is all done on 'the feels'.
We've had SARS1, Swine flu and numerous other large scale cases of highly transmissible respiratory infections over the last 2-3 decades so you'd hope that they would learn a bit each time. Bojo was under immense pressure to 'do something' while SAGE people went on the TV repeat the same old 'the sky is falling' lines. Everyone except Sweden was locking down so it was the easier decision to make. Follow the herd or commit political suicide, especially as his best mate had locked down the US.
We will never know the true impact on direct covid related deaths. Ignoring the 'died within 30 days of a +ve test' count. The average age of death was pretty much on par with the life expectancy in this country. The Nightingale hospitals were an utter waste of time, money and effort as was track and trace.
Many of us were saying what a terrible idea these lockdowns were after the first few weeks, because it was pretty obvious what the collateral damage would be. Only Sweden seemed to stick with what I would call a sensible policy (focused protection and encourage people to stay apart) without shutting down everything. I can see that this would have been a very difficult sell, but I think that was largely due to the fact that anyone who argued against it was pretty much suppressed. This was a deliberate move by the likes of Fauci, who wanted to quash the idea of the Great Barrington Declaration. He was asking social media companies why certain people are still allowed on there. This is the whole thing against free speech.
OECD data including Sweden.
Perhaps it would have been more obvious to more people, if it was allowed to be discussed openly. Big tech companies were deliberately suppressing it. If you searched for "great barrington declaration" on Google you would first be offered several sites critical of the idea before the actual site. This is deliberate manipulation of search results. Perhaps if more voices were allowed to question "the narrative", then the BBC and The Guardian would not have been such proponents of lockdown, as public opinion would probably have shifted.
Perhaps we could have avoided the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns at that point, when it was really really obvious to some that it was such a monumentously bad idea.
And don't forget The Guardian and the BBC were calling for a 4th lockdown last Christmas, and Boris (remember him?) resisted and we were pretty much fine (or the wave was probably no worse than it would have otherwise been). However some prominent scientists were screaming for another lockdown, and saying how irresponsible we were being, and things like "blood on your hands".
I think some (America?) are STILL clinging to this narrative, and are masking children and insisting that foreign visitors have to be vaccinated. This is patently crazy. Perhaps they don't realise that much of the West have moved on.
Regarding vaccine damage, I'm not just going by my personal knowledge, but the number of VAERS and Yellow Card reports (which is widely recognised as being historically hugely underreported by 10x - 100x). Perhaps the excess deaths we're seeing right now are something else? It's worth investigating. Could be cancer / suicide / alcohol / who knows?. It's probably not climate change.
It does appear they are trying to cover it up though...
which is hardly surprising to me, given Pfizer's history. But seems surprising to many. And YES this is a conspiracy theory (and sometimes - often even - there are real conspiracies. But you don't usually get to hear about them for a couple of decades)
Anyway, my point was just about free speech. We should be allowed to discuss these things. But we weren't. And any voices loud enough to matter were suppressed, particularly on Twitter.
Anyway, my point was just about free speech. We should be allowed to discuss these things. But we weren't. And any voices loud enough to matter were suppressed, particularly on Twitter.
I don't think you understand what free speech is. It's a contract between citizens and the government. As a privately owned and operated organisation Twitter is not required to adhere to the principle. When you participate on Twitter you are doing so under their terms and conditions. You either accept them or take your business elsewhere.
Posting a message on Twitter is like saying something when you're in my house. If I don't like what you're saying I have every right to make you leave. Free speech stops at my front door. It also stops at the point when you arrive on a Twitter page.
I have a problem with 5G .
It is too close to the ground radar frequencies used by aircraft . The greedy evil telecoms reply to this was that the aircraft people could just put better filters on their devices . Check out
By a very interesting commercial pilot - Juan Brown I think
Also it will cause problems with satellites which obtain data on water vapor in the atmosphere .
There are some health concerns just as there are with the normal frequencies of pre 5G cell phones (see the NIH national institute of toxicology cell phone study )
If something doesn't kill you overnight in the US you may have a hard time getting Congress to properly regulate it .
I'm not saying that many people have overblown possible health effects of 5G and possibly pre 5G cell phones but it appears to me that those over the top claims are then used to discount ANY discussion of health or safety problems .
And the federal state and local governments in the US have lied to the public each time there was a meltdown or dangerous radiation leak .
How effective are masks at preventing the spread of COVID ? It greatly depends on how good the mask is and how well it fits . If a man has a beard the mask will be less effective . If it's a thin cloth mask or one of the loosely fitting surgical masks it will be less effective .
This doesn't mean that all masks are no good and we should just not bother with them . They can help prevent the spread of COVID .
"The funky static effects of N95 filters does filter out some aerosols."
And the person will then touch a contaminated surface and immediately reach up to reposition their mask from the front.
A mask is good to limit the radius at which a cough or sneeze will project, but it has extremely limited protection for the wearer.
"A mask is good to limit the radius at which a cough or sneeze will project, but it has extremely limited protection for the wearer."
Which is not the point of masks. Why dont people get this? They are not designed to protect the wearer. They are designed to limit the spread of your virus laden breath so that other people are less likely to get the sodding thing. I know the concept of other people's health is a difficult one for some of you.
The tendency for mask users to touch their faces, touch contaminated surfaces etc is why at the initial stages of covid WHO did not recommend their use - people would assume they were "protected", although with the rapid development of the virus this was changed.
"OK I see the basic issue you have with "the narrative" - you believe that the worlds' scientists all colluded on a fake virus to keep us all locked down because.....?"
Moose, The statements were not commentary on lockdowns, etc, but to show that if you didn't hold those views for whatever reason, even very good ones, posting that view on any media was instant banishment. You go along with the group-think or they tie a pole to your neck and make sure you are on the maze side of the doors at nightfall to play with the grievers. It's an extreme form of political correctness that's enforced by silencing those that don't go along.
" It's an extreme form of political correctness that's enforced by silencing those that don't go along."
In the case of Twitter, it's a private company - they set their own rules. It's not political correctness or censorship. There are plenty more social media platforms where you can spout nonsense about covid.
In the case of the commenter, I was replying to, it's quite clear that he has some frankly deranged views all about "big money" which he happily espouses without ever thinking that his "research" is simply def to him but other media with a very obvious motive and political bias. And yet he is free to repeat well known lies and conspiracy theories here. It's almost like being prevented from talking rubbish on Twitter makes no difference....