San Francisco investigates Hotel Twitter, Musk might pack up and leave Elon Musk's plans to allow some Twitter HQ employees to sleep on-site is running afoul of San Francisco building inspectors. Given Musk's responses to previous challenges to his authority, Twitter might be Texas-bound just like SpaceX and Tesla before it. Twitter surprised some remaining employees this week by converting …
You've obviously never had to deal with city Codes departments.
Recent example, in a deep red county in a deep red state; I have an existing steel shed in my back yard. It is old, ugly, rusty, and beat up. To replace it I have to get a permit from the city. But they won't allow me to put the new shed in the same location that this one has been in for 30 years. It's a couple feet too close to the house. Due to easements, setbacks, various other rules, and terrain, the new shed would basically have to be put in the middle of my back yard, removing most of the utility of having a back yard. And I'd have to either move the garden or remove a tree. And don't ever let your yard get 8" tall, even in the spring.
BTW, my real estate taxes went up 45% last year. They said they needed to catch up from a decade of incompetence. But that's a pretty big increase to swallow all at once. I somehow doubt they will lower it now that the housing bubble is over.
New shed? Just call it a remodel.
Years ago, when working for the power company, I went to identify a service location for a new(?) waterfront mini mansion. Upon arriving, I noted that the building (under construction) was pretty close to the lake. And I asked the architect if this was going to cause code problems. He informed me that this was not a new house, just a remodel. From about 400 square feet to 6000. He pointed to a patch of ancient-looking linoleum flooring in one corner of the laundry room. The "old" house.
All of America is pretty bad for zoning rules. Try building an apartment building next to one of those sprawling wasteful suburbs and you'll find you can't because of the restrictive zoning. Red states have just as many annoying nimbys, they just have more guns.
"At least Texas will let you build massive subdivisions on a flood plane."
The bigger issue is buyers that have never learned anything about buying a home. Their first talk with an insurance agent will be after they've committed to a purchase. It's then they'll find that they can't get flood insurance due to the home being on a known flood plane. The insurance companies have very detailed maps on that sort of thing.
Flood plain. In the US, flood-plain maps are maintained by the USGS, and the last I looked you could find them online for free.
Home-buyers getting a loan in the US have to have an insurance binder to proceed, and the company writing the binder will inform them if they need flood insurance. Anyone who's owned a home before should understand that pricing insurance is something to be done before making an offer; first-time buyers will often be going through FHA or other government programs that have additional requirements.
All non-cash residential real-estate purchases in the US are contingent on financing, and it's common to make them contingent on affordable insurance.
There really isn't any excuse for unknowingly buying a home with a high flood risk. There may be cases where people have little choice due to a lack of other affordable housing. But I recall seeing comments in the newspaper (in Michigan) from flooded-out homeowners who said things like "they said this was a 50-year flood plain, and we've only lived here 10 years". When it comes to a major purchase like a house, that's willful ignorance.
This is typical stupidity. Red states interfere with people with aggression and ignorance. DeKlantis in Florida and his "Don't say Gay" efforts. Efforts to remove books they don't like from libraries. Abbott's law against social media. Healthcare criminalization of women and trans people.
What Lipvig means is that he _likes_ the government to bully the poor and minorities, as long as he and his corrupt cronies can do what they want.
My my, must be because I'm a bigot, eh? Sorry, wrongo. Don't want kindergarteners being taught sex, anyone who does must be a pedo, right? And it's not MY state where little old Asian ladies are being kicked in the stomach for no reason.
Leftists in the US DERIVE POWER FROM RACISM They certainly aren't going to let it end. But, we in the red states wish it would.
Which state are you in? Texas? Texas ranked in the top 10 states for highest tax burden.
Elon moved his company to Texas because they paid him a whole bunch of money like they do all of California businesses that move there. You can look it up. It’s a Texas enterprise then it’s paid through Texas oil tax revenues on drilling.
Perhaps because they aren't? Most taxes spent in red states go to military bases, and the split between who pays the most and who receives the most is pretty evenly split between red and blue states. Rhode Island, for example, is blue as can be and recieves almost 5 dollars from the Feds for every dollar they send. It's easy enough to look up, but if you're selling a viewpoint looking stuff up is not in your best interest
Twitter's not made in Germany but Mastodon is. Germany for the win.
From a capitalist perspective, however, Mastodon is less of loss leader than Twitter, so there's that.
For Musk, it's not about the money, it's uh ... uh ... the demonstrative hardcore that counts.
> Zoning is over-regulation now?
Zoning is party racism and partly the way to increase separation between population strata. It enforces to keep the poorer more far out of the city center, which causes those to have a higher cost when driving to work, for example, and therefore cementing the middle and lower classes to their "ghettos". Unthinkable in Germany, partly 'cause the US enforced some rules in Germany after WW2, which they should apply to their home country as well (i.e. practice what you preach).
Of course you have to use whataboutism with Somalia here, hm?
Jou, while you are depressing accurate in many (most?) situations, those are how zoning is mis-applied, and you're ignoring the sensible side of the practice (multi-family / high-density housing near public transit, historic and downtown rebirth, etc).
Bottom line is that it's not "zoning" but "zoners" that are the problem!
Abuse of a system is not the same as the purpose of the system.
The purpose of zoning is to prevent, say, a mall being built next to small family homes. Or a waste dump. Or any of a million other inappropriate things.
Its about ensuring that things are done in appropriate ways.
But you have to take into account that with a lot of the people who work in the government making the zoning decisions, they love their little slice of power.
"America is ludicrous. you need a license to be eg: a hairdresser."
The weirder thing is needing a license to be a locksmith..... but not in every state. It's long past the time when you would have a hard time getting the products and training needed. Since I work a lot in real estate, knowing how to bypass locks and re-key them is a very good skill to have. There isn't a week that goes by that I have to deal with a lock an owner/tenant that has moved out left without a key or the need to re-key the doors on a home so they all use the same key.
"Salon workers don't just cut hair. They do all kinds of hair work, including some with chemicals that have to be handled and used properly to avoid injuries and other issues. Requiring a license is sensible."
It would make more sense to have different levels. I go to a guy's barber shop and they just cut hair. No tinting, no highlights, no frosting. A little styling gel is all the more chemical they get.
In the US at least, there is a requirement that people that just braid hair have to get a cosmetology license in some states. I expect that if you don't like the braids, you could just unwind them. Again, no chemicals.
> America can be more over-regulated than Germany?
At this point they are just investigating a complaint - I am sure the same would happen in Germany or most other jurisdictions. They will likely determine that rest areas are OK as long as they are not permanent living spaces.
Elon seems to believe he is above any kind of over-site and likes to use these situations as an excuse to do things he was planning anyway. Now any job loses or company issues caused by a move can be blamed on local government.
I have great respect for what he has accomplished so far at Spacex but Unfortunately he seems to turning into Trump-like character. If "good" things happen he takes credit, "bad" things are always someone esle's fault.
He didn't accomplish anything at SpaceX. They have an entire team to manage him so he doesn't interfere with anything actually getting done, the same is true at Tesla.
Twitter wasn't prepared for him, so we get to see what he would actually have done at the other companies if he didn't have babysitters.
He had a great deal to do with getting Space X for idea to the point where they had their first successful Falcon 9 landing. From deciding that affordable rockets were possible and hiring the right people, to insisting on pushing all the way to re-use risking it all,- read their history. That he is being "managed"now at SpaceX doesn't change that he has a lot of credit for where the company is today. He also pushed Tesla to the bring of bankruptcy but came out on the other side with mass production up and running.
He's better at getting things going. He will insist on pushing crazy ideas to either breaking it all or success, like rocket re-use. He's best with tech and doesn't understand Twitter is about people, not tech. He shouldn't run established companies and shouldn't be on social media. His success has also gone to his head. Power corrupts everyone, very few people can avoid it and he was not an empathic person even to begin with. He's an ass and getting worse.
I'm reminded of Shrek: He's like an onion, he has layers. Also he stinks.
"From deciding that affordable rockets were possible"
He didn't do anything there and there is a good argument that he charges far less than he really should for long term stability of the company. This has lead to the need to raise more private investment every year to fund programs within the company.
The cost to develop a new rocket, rocket engine and launch facilities is massive. A widget company selling millions of widgets a year can get by just fine earning 10-20% net. A rocket company that is selling 8 launches a year and also needs to support other vehicles that might launch 1-2 every year or every other year needs to realize a much larger gross and net profit. If you strip away Starlink launches, SpaceX isn't doing many more launches per year than most other companies such as ULA. If Starlink ever gets to it's projected constellation size of 42,000 operational satellites, that might spell the end of aerospace for the most part.
"Don't forget Neuralink and Hyperloop"
Hyperloop is just Vac-Train rehashed with new CGI. It wasn't viable way back when Robert Goddard took out a patent on it and nothing has changed to make it viable since then.
Neuralink has lost nearly all of it's scientist founders. One of the ones left might still be out on maternity leave with the twins Elon fathered.
They will likely determine that rest areas are OK as long as they are not permanent living spaces.
There are special requirements for areas where people sleep. Fire alarms, safe exits, arc fault circuit breakers. Most are focused on people not dying from fires while asleep. This being San Francisco, there are probably ordinances related to earthquakes too. A commercial building built for office space wouldn't have spent the additional money for anything related to that if it wasn't required. The codes department would probably look at it from the perspective of a hotel.
"Where I come from, fire alarms and escapes are pretty standard fixtures in office buildings as well."
In many places the rules are different for commercial and residential. In a commercial building, it's expected that people are going to be awake and will be able to quickly get to an exit in case of an emergency. People that are sleeping take longer to wake up and figure out what's going on. They might also be stoned or drunk which isn't something that's generally acceptable in the workplace.
There is also the tax situation. People that live at work effectively pay half the tax that people do that have a separate place to live.
Inspections are problematic. The fire building department can't insist on inspecting a residential home without evidence of a violation. They can roam through a commercial building looking for things they can asses a fine against pretty much at will. Defense contractors have their own fire departments due to the need for the inspectors to have security clearances. Hotels can be inspected, but an occupied room becomes a residence for legal purposes so they can't roust out customers. In some cases, employer provided housing can be subject to inspection. Customs agents will often inspect bunkrooms of ships during an entry inspection.
"There is also the tax situation. People that live at work effectively pay half the tax that people do that have a separate place to live."
Bingo! We simply can't have people escaping the residential development market (where they negotiate as individuals with less clout) and have a large employer use their economic power to carve out a bit of living space for their employees.
It's not just the developers, but the tax base they represent for a city. Businesses are often given tax cuts to keep them in town. The lost revenue being recoverable from residential properties.
Ten downvotes per day on this, and as many per day on my zoning comment.
The leftpondians have taken over The Register, and many love to downvote those who point at the weaknesses of their belief which country is the only good country. But that can be topped!
Lets dig out the statistics of school shooting 2022 in US-A: By today 294 school shootings in 2022 alone. 327 wounded or dead. Way more school shootings in a month (or maybe week?) than in WHOLE Europe (including UK) in a decade. Mostly only local news, not national news. Considered as normal in the US, I'd say. And the school police didn't help a bit, instead are used to opress and supress kids which are not teenagers yet...
Or the "normal" mass shootings, i.e. at least four wounded or dead... Total shootings: 729. Shootings per day: 2.11 . Killed: 836. Wounded: 2887 - in 2022 alone. More in a week than in Europe within a decade (including UK again). Considered as normal.
So, US-A, how about making regulations that actually benefit the people? You enforced many good regulations upon Germany after world war II, and I am very VERY grateful of what US-A did to and with Germany right after WW2 since I live in the safe and prosperous result. Take some of those ideas and apply them over there! Example: A state financed ACTUALLY NEUTRAL AND INDEPENDENT TV station, which does not report everything colored with some weird agenda to manipulate your opinion, for example.
Well, lets see how many downvotes that gets each day.
Step 1) Let Musk pack his toys and run away from anywhere that forces him to follow the rules others do. Let the cost of building lease termination come down on them. Hopefully the remaining employees say F-you and leave instead of relocating.
Step 2) Get your popcorn and see how long Twitter stays up.
"Step 1) Let Musk pack his toys and run away from anywhere that forces him to follow the rules others do. Let the cost of building lease termination come down on them. Hopefully the remaining employees say F-you and leave instead of relocating.
Step 2) Get your popcorn and see how long Twitter stays up."
Years ago, all our team went through those 2 steps.
It went like this:
step 1: our boss explained he wants to relocate, 200 km away, near another company building and explained that, of course, the 10 staff team should all do the same. Screw their family, they're not as important as he was ...
step 2: the company announced a voluntary departure program and a meeting to inform people. The meeting was just at the same time as our weekly meeting. We came to the weekly, sat and one colleague remarked the agenda conflict. Our boss charmingly said that "of course, if someone want to go to the HR meeting, he can". This was a fond carrer moment: all 10 staff stood up, like a single man, and proceeded to leave the room. The smile was a bit more forced on our marvelous boss ! He just said "well ... I think there is no more point to the weekly now ..."
Needless to say; some 6 months after all the team was gone.
Popcorn indeed.
Once upon a time I worked for a company in Cambridge, and they got bought out by a US outfit.
We ran the most profitable division but because it didn't fit in the Americans' plans we were to be cancelled, and I was given the "opportunity" by HR to then work for someone who was friends with management but was about as capable as the chair he occupied. Given that there was no way I was going to be the fall guy for an idiot I made some calls and was immediately invited by a big setup to run their new team.
So, the next collective HR meeting started with a presentation of our wonderful new future and, when asked what we thought, I handed in my notice.
Loyalty goes both ways. If they had offered me a decent position I would have done my level best to work with the new owners, despite signs they were rushing headlong into a culture clash, but moving from relative independence to working for an oaf who couldn't spell techology without a dictionary? Not a chance.
Nah, that was simply Murphy's Law of unintended consequences at work. The same will happen to anyone who will accuse someone else of a lack of intelligence: it is pretty much guaranteed the word will be misspelled, only to be detected after the edit time has expired :).
Let me put it differently then: the only valid place for a screwdriver by that guy would prevent it from being borrowed by anyone else..
Musk will send an email saying "Now that I have fucked you three times in a row in less than a fortnight your asshole should be elongated enough that this time you should feel pleasure so be grateful. We are moving to Texas next week. You will have to respond favorably to my brilliant idea within the hour, otherwise consider yourself in breach of your hardcore pledge and thus fired for cause without any severance pay or benefits.
Sayonara my soldiers,
Elon Musk"
> Given he just sacked the cleaning staff
If true, I totally support that. Clean up your own shit.
If you're thinking of pulling the "but I'm too expensive for such lowly duties", no you're not. All you have to do is waste ten minutes less of your time doing unproductive, non work stuff and invest that in keeping your and your colleagues workspace clean and tidy.
IME it makes for a much better workplace and gets rid of people with the wrong attitude.
And are any managers going to do that? There's a difference between expecting a basic level of cleanliness from all employees, which is entirely reasonable, and making the few people you're willing to hire do all the work because the employer is too cheap to recognize what they want to have done and how much it costs to do so. If you put admin tasks on the people who are building your core products, you will find that they either let some of that slide when they're short on time, or they spend time doing tasks for which you could pay someone less and you start to lose productivity. Decide what you're willing to give up, and if the answer is nothing, congratulations on learning why businesses hire admin staff. Fair warning: if the thing you're willing to give up is not something your employees are willing to put up with, that may not work too well for you either.
> There's a difference between expecting a basic level of cleanliness from all employees, which is entirely reasonable, and making the few people you're willing to hire do all the work because the employer is too cheap
This is not about being cheap. It's about a certain corporate culture (if you want to call it that) where nobody is too important to grab a mop or do the latrines.
Thankfully, that is exactly the culture I've been working in for most of the last three decades, because I never fully adapted too well back into civilian life (nor would I want to).
It's not usually about being too important to do those things. It's about being too busy. If you hired me to do a full-time job at what I normally do, writing software, then by default I will give you a normal full-time amount of hours of the software you asked for. If you come to me and tell me that you also want the building cleaned (very different from my desk and local area cleaned, which I would have done by default), and that takes eight hours per week for each of us, I'll have some questions. Questions like whether you want me to work eight fewer hours on writing software, or if there's some benefit to me for working the extra eight hours. In most cases when such requests are made, there is no benefit to anyone doing the extra work and the person asking finds a reason why they don't have to be part of the group.
And yes, depending on what you want me to do, I might also decline the task. I like writing software a lot more than I would like scrubbing bricks twenty stories above street level, so if you want the outside of a skyscraper washed, it makes more sense to hire someone who is capable of doing it quickly and has that as their business rather than demand I do it, at least if you want me to continue working there. I know that there are places where they just want me to write software and skyscraper maintenance is given to someone else, so I have an incentive to work there.
The thing is, you don't spend eight hours every day writing software, do you? You might spend eight hours some days, 12 hours sometimes, and sometimes no hours at all. Everybody has downtime, and during that downtime you could be doing something different.
Of course there would be some problems with asking people to clean their own offices on that basis, but that's a whole different question.
"The thing is, you don't spend eight hours every day writing software, do you?"
In general, yes. Or tasks related to the software, such as writing documentation, reading bug reports and support requests, planning or architecture meetings, code reviews, etc. That's why I'm employed and it's what I spend my time on. Sometimes, when things are important, I work more than eight hours in a day. I won't pretend that every day I'm perfectly productive, but there's not a lot of slack time where there's no software work to be done.
"Everybody has downtime, and during that downtime you could be doing something different."
Only if the downtime is planned or very common. If, for example, I had a task which involves being available in case something happens, I would be able to plan some time where it's likely I won't have work to do. The only time I don't have anything to do is when something breaks like the internet going down (my code gets built and run on servers, so only some things can be done locally), but such events are both rare (one this calendar year lasting about twenty minutes) and unplanned.
You presume downtime from writing software is "doing nothing" or not important.
My downtime (as a mechanical engineer) is often spent talking to coworkers, having a hot beverage of choice to let my mind wander for a while, taking a lunchtime walk (or just lunch). All of that is important to make the work I do outside of that downtime work more efficiently. If I was expected to clean toilets in that downtime I'd be out of here in no time. I can keep my own workstation and it's immediate surroundings tidy but like hell am I going to be scrubbing the shitters.
"If you put admin tasks on the people who are building your core products, you will find that they either let some of that slide when they're short on time"
The incentive for the employee is to spend the time on the task where they will get the most grief for not getting it done or the one where there might be a bonus even if the other task is the more important at the moment.
No, you really don't.
I worked as a janitor in a downtown SF office building (3-4 blocks away from Twitter HQ as it turns out, at 742 Market Street) during summers as I went to Cal. Then over the next 40-50 years of my career in IT I eventually rose from coder trainee to a position of VP of IT infrastructure in a mid-sized ocean transportation company; held that for 8 years.
I've seen both ends, and everything in the middle. You have NO IDEA what a commercial building janitor does until you've been one.
Are you going to clean the toilets (both sexes) every day, sometimes multiple times a day?
Are you going to sweep the sidewalks twice a day in front of the building (a SF regulation, as the building is responsible for the sidewalks)?
Are you going to mop all the hard floors nightly (and vacuum the carpet in carpeted areas)?
Are you going to kill the monster cockroach somebody just spotted in the freight elevator lobby?
Are you willing to pay multiple techies (will take more than one) to perform these functions, or you want them to focus on product?
This is not your home, this is not your dorm, this is not your mother's basement: you have clients that visit and you want things to be SPOTLESS!
I have immense respect and consideration for the cleaners, janitors and the other facilities guys. It was not just that I did that kind of work during summer jobs but mainly due to the way I was raised. Wherever I worked I always keep my area clean, pick up trash if it saw it lying around, and generally do everything I could to make their life easier.
For me the most fascinating observation over the decades is the total obliviousness to the "little people" so many in high paid tech jobs have. Almost always the US born people, rarely the foreigners. And the correlation seems to be the more Ivy League the college, the more "progressive" the politics, the less thought and consideration for the guys who have to keep the place clean and safe. Usually not the slightest acknowledgement that these people even exist. Even while they are doing their job. I will always smile and say hello to the cleaners, facilities guys. Acknowledge them as coworkers. If they speak English then some small talk. Most dont. But a smile and a friendly face is all you need to say - I see you as person. And I respect what you are doing. Thank you. You would be surprised just how a little respect for those who are normally "invisible" can pay big divides in the most unexpected way. For a start the "invisible" see and hear pretty much everything that is going on...
You can tell a huge amount about a person by how the deal with the "little people". The cleaners. The guys on security. etc. If they treat the "little people" with respect as coworkers then they are someone you can generally trust. Otherwise you are dealing with someone who has a huge sense of entailment and arrogance. Or just stupid. Usually hard to tell the difference.
I strongly believe there is a correlation between this and wealth.
Those who don't have to do their own cleaning at home, because they employ "minions" to do it, often overlook the work the "little people" do anywhere else including in companies they run.
Little to do with wealth. Except as a nouveau riche sort of thing. Its purely a sense of entitlement thing.
People who come from serious Old Money or very Old Families / Aristo's grew up in an environment where there are indoor servants (to use the old term) but they are taught from a very early age to treat the help with the greatest respect and consideration. The help go about their jobs but among those I have known who grew up in those environments it considered the height of bad manners to treat the help in a rude, peremptory or inconsiderate way. It is just not done.
Its the nouveaus (and their children) who tend to treat the help like crap. And the very affluent middle class type making class status statements by employing indoor and outdoor help without having the slightest idea of the correct way to treat and manage them. Veering randomly from curt and rude to way too matey. Thats why at least in California so many of the very affluent middle class types employment Mexicans and Central Americans as help. To try to reduce their social awkwardness and embarrassment dealing with the situation. Its very odd to watch.
So very much a class thing, or rather the lack of it.
"You can tell a huge amount about a person by how the deal with the "little people". "
Those are the people that know more about the people in the company than anybody else and they do notice things and talk about what they see with others they work with. It's important to be on good terms with those people even if it's just by not leaving a horrendous mess for them to clean up in your office/workspace. Somebody those people know a bit more personally is far less likely to get talked about. Even if an entire office is good about cleaning up after themselves, there is still work for custodial staff but that job becomes much easier and that staff will want to keep their jobs for the long term. Most of the will have had work in places where people were total Nedry's or will have heard stories from their work mates and realize they have a great position. Less turnover and more loyalty will mean fewer leaks and exposé books.
"> Given he just sacked the cleaning staff
If true, I totally support that. Clean up your own shit."
My mum was a cleaner for most of her working life - offices, schools, colleges - and when young I was occasionally "roped in" to help from time to time.
Some of things supposedly "very well paid" people do at work that one "hopes" they would never do at home, you woudn't believe. Absolutely disgusting.
Even were I work today with a bunch of well paid, supposedly very intelligent (PhD) people, the state they have left some things in is absolutely disgraceful. Not just their working areas (more usually described as "tips") but also horrible skanky food left out, uncovered, on bench tops over a summer weekend and out of date/mouldy/rotting food left in the fridge.
Yes! You DO need proper cleaners.
As he's going all out for indentured servitude, he might as well just stick the remaining H1B staff in shipping container offices in Texas.
This post has been deleted by its author
Musk needs to leave, and San Francisco needs to make it known to him that this is their most heart-felt desire--that his presence there most definitely does not enhance their city...quite the contrary.
It would greatly improve the quality of San Francisco.
"If it were possible to cross a man with a cat, it would improve the man but diminish the cat."--Mark Twain
As of this post, 24 commentards are offended that I consider hobo shit on the sidewalks as a problem, and not a thing of life-affirming joy. Well, I don't care. I will always consider it a disgusting problem. And it is a problem, a big enough problem that anyone going to San Francisco can go to the Google store and download a poo map.
Course, at least 24 people here would download the map as a tourist guide and not as places to avoid.
By moving the HQ after closing local offices, he'll be telling his SF staff they have to move to Texas or quit. The sum of his proclamations seem to be funnelling towards further reducing the work force.
I'm thinking Musk has trouble tracking multiple variables, or at least keeping them all in mind as far as consequences are concerned.
Is Musk playing that 3D-chess from Star Trek while the rest of us are playing checkers?
We think he is behaving stupidly, but he is actually distracting us. Give the tech press in a feeding frenzy over beds in conference rooms, meanwhile he executes plans to move out of SFO.
Herschel "I'm not that smart" Walker never fooled anyone, the reason people still voted for him can only be fall on calculating pragmatism, if we're to be kind, or dogmatism and fanaticism
And, under this theory, why would he need anyone, especially readers of newspapers, distracted from his theoretical plans to move? What problem would there be if he announced the plan? And, if we're assuming that he does want to distract people, how does constantly doing stupid things that get regulators, reporters, and readers to pay attention to his moves accomplish that? If he was being boring before announcing a move, it would still get covered, but fewer people would care about a corporation being moved geographically than about the entertainment the Twitter chaos has generated.
If he is playing a more complicated game, it's not that one.
"Give the tech press in a feeding frenzy over beds in conference rooms, meanwhile he executes plans to move out of SFO."
Moving out of SF is an idea I can applaud. Super expensive office space and needing to pay employees outlandish salaries so they can live within 75miles of said office is likely where the money has been going rather than salaries. A company with $5bn in revenue should be able to have 7,500 people on staff with no problem.
The downside of moving is the company will lose people that have family responsibilities or significant others that can't move. A few months ago, the loss of those people could be dealt with, but now with all of the reductions, Twitter isn't in good shape. I was looking to move my manufacturing company, but had the same problem. I'd need to budget time and money to train a whole bunch of new staff. Only a couple of my current employees could move. That would have meant no sleep for me and too much time of not being able to fulfill the contracts I had on the books. Can Twitter survive a move to Texas?
and likely expensive for Musk, who has a lot of financial catching up to pay back creditors.
"Elon Musk Starts And Ends Thursday As World's Second Richest Person"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/2022/12/08/elon-musk-no-longer-worlds-richest-again-as-stock-hit-by-report-of-personal-margin-loan/
"The Tesla chief was overtaken for the third time in two days by Bernard Arnault of French luxury conglomerate LVMH"
You may well be without ever realising it. It's not that hard to ever having drank a flûte of Moët & Chandon or Veuve Clicquot (the two best selling Champagne brands), or a glass of Glenmorangie whisky - they're all under LVHM's wing, amongst many others
The man is said, and has himself claimed, to have been nearly broke multiple times, and is recognised even by those who are not his biggest fans (such as Mr Eberhard, of Tesla fame) to be a massive, fearless risk taker.
I don't think he's too worried about his ranking in the Forbes list.
> I don't think he's too worried about his ranking in the Forbes list.
But he is concerned about his control of Tesla and SpaceX. At the moment he operates them with virtually no oversight. A Twitter collapse could force him to sell shares to cover creditors and create the opportunity for outsiders to gain influence. It could also undermine existing Tesla/SpaceX investor's confidence in his decision making resulting in increased oversight.
It could also undermine existing Tesla/SpaceX investor's confidence in his decision making resulting in increased oversight.
Given the whole Twitter affair it appears adding such independent oversight might be a good thing for the company's stability and future. The manchild appears to get bored rather quickly.
> You may be confusing "fearless"
I'm not confusing anything, I'm merely quoting from memory what Eberhard has said in interviews.
It's his money, not mine. If you're so concerned about those employees and their families, then *you* give them a job, I don't know what you're waiting for.
"to be a massive, fearless risk taker."
If every new project your company takes on is making a bet on the survival of the company to accomplish, that's a problem. Large publicly traded companies aren't generally applauded for risking investor's money on dodgy schemes that 'might' pay off spectacularly or even more likely will crash creating a hole that drags every bit of the company in.
Start ups are classically the biggest risk takers and the investors/founders are making a bet they are correct about it being a good bet. Those investors also command a huge return for taking the risk. There is a point where those startups need to transition into policies of being more conservative, especially if they issue stock to the public. If the founder has another very risky idea, they can either start a new company or contain the risk so it won't sink what's been built.
Seems like this would be allowed by a process of applying for a permit and outfitting some rooms as dorms or bedrooms. In either case surely there must be hotel or two nearby?
I'd expect adults would ask about the permitting process and move on whatever the outcome. Sounds like a sibling tattling and the other crying "Mommy Mommy I'm not getting my way".
"Seems like this would be allowed by a process of applying for a permit and outfitting some rooms as dorms or bedrooms. In either case surely there must be hotel or two nearby?"
Would you want to work for a company that demands so much of your time that you need to take advantage of dorms rooms on-site or a hotel room around the corner? This was a company where many could work remotely or do their office time and go home to their own bed just months ago. I'm not hearing any stories about the workers left being offered a million dollars if they sacrifice a year of their personal life to the endeavor.
THIS!
Twitter is no longer a public company.
The usual incentive to get IT drones to work like slaves in a salt mine is to dangle stock options and/or hefty bonuses.
Private company, no stock, no options. So where is the incentive to go beyond and above? Love of Elon? Belief in the 'Mission'? Bonuses? Does Twitter have those? That deeply in acquisition debt??
"Private company, no stock, no options"
A private corporation still has stock. In the case of Twitter, Elon isn't the sole owner and ownership is divided up by the number of stocks each shareholder has. What is highly unlikely for some time is for the company to be publicly listed on a stock exchange again which is where an employee can make big money for any stock they've been awarded. Shares in privately held companies can often come with covenants regarding their sale. Being given shares might be more of a gesture than anything meaningful.
Step back from cliff face of the "out-rage internet" and look at how various players are reacting to what is going on.
Elon Musk:
Elon Musk does tend to generate attention and controversy and I'm really not sure that I'd like to work for him. However, I'm not super worried about how he's handling twitter, but we'll we need time to see how it goes. *If* his intentions of having something more balanced, but with some censorship for bad stuff (genuine hate speech, CP, pile-ons, etc) are true, then I think the changes will ultimately be good for the everyone.
U.S. Government:
I'm not entirely surprised that they've reacted badly, because they've been caught asking for people to be censored. I expect that from my own government (UK) as they think over-censorship is good because they view us all as children.
This is far more serious for the U.S. from a stated-aims/cultural perspective, i.e. freedom of speech and all that. Although this seems to have primarily been Democrat (because of the political slant of twiter emplyees), the Repulicans did this as well. As such, both sides need public condemnation, even if they've skirted breaking U.S. law. Perhaps a new law is needed to make political censorship on "public space" platforms illegal. Something for discussion.
Media:
This is the worrying one. Most media have slammed Elon Musk with what can only be described as hit pieces. That's not to say that some points made aren't valid - some are very valid - but they also don't make any effort to try and present (steel man) Elon Musk's perspective. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but to me it's very, very plain that there is some consensus going on between media companies of how this is covered. Even to people who really dislike Elon Musk, that should be concerning. This is particularly true of the "Twitter Files", for which there seems to be a stunning silence from media companies about - even if it's just to rip it apart.
Those working at media companies need to make up their minds if they want to be journalists or activists - and I include the right side of the isle in that as well.
I'm going by what I've read and guess what? No one from the media is calling it out that I can see - probably because they're not commenting at all for the most part. However, I might have missed some articles, so if you have something that goes against this then I'll happily look into it.
Very good analysis, thank you for sharing. We may differ in some details but I think globally that's a good description of the current picture.
> This is the worrying one. Most media have slammed Elon Musk with what can only be described as hit pieces.
Entirely concur. Sadly I'm perhaps more familiar than most with the old adage that "drama sells" and this is textbook it.
It's not new, mind. Remember the fake pieces about Tesla cars running out of battery and all the electric mobility naysayers… while at the same time showering (courtesy of ready-made press releases) praise on the likes of the Nikola guy, nowadays convicted of fraud no thanks to the media but to a five-person investment business somewhere in the US (Hindenburg Research), who were at first dismissively labeled as "short sellers".
I have no particular opinion on Mr Musk, nor do I feel a need to judge him, but I do take care to double check what I read. I haven't seen any verifiable statements from him that justify any amount of hysteria. But I understand why that happens when he publishes a one-sentence (sometimes one word) message and certain media editorialise that info a 500 word article, consisting largely of their own suppositions and/or unrelated facts (guilt by association).
By all means, the media should report freely and with a wide diversity of points of view, but they should also report ethically. Meanwhile, readers should consider that most media exists either for the purpose of making money from advertising, or to serve as mouthpieces for political or industrial interests. I believe the media themselves should be more open about this so as to spare us all the various conspiracy theories and false accusations levelled against them.
Quote from OA
"Twitter's move would be a major setback to a decade of revitalization in San Francisco's Mid-Market area, which lured Twitter and other tech companies with a lifted payroll tax in 2011. Now, Twitter is one of the only major tech companies left in the neighborhood, and the length of that stay seems to be getting less certain."
Why did the other companies move out despite favourable tax exemptions? Rent too high? Space not needed?
SF isn't the only city authority pinning its hopes on 'tech' as a growth area.
Icon: I've lasted longer than most of the buildings in my neighbourhood. Birmingham (West Midlands) likes demolishing stuff.
"Why did the other companies move out despite favourable tax exemptions? Rent too high? Space not needed?"
Rents are very high. Parking costs as much as office space and housing anywhere close enough for a commute is also very expensive. Not only to employees have to be compensated at a level that allows them to live in the area, they also need to have enough money left over from paying rent to be able to buy food, clothing and entertainment that is also heavily marked up. Taxes are onerous. Big cities are famous for taxing just about everything within reach. They need that money to sponsor all of the people that don't have the money to live in that city.
It was important years ago for a company to have a central headquarters due to limited and expensive communications. Communications that were even more limited outside of big cities. Banking was done more often in-person and banks that had the services for larger companies were located within big cities. Now it makes little difference where even a functional division of a company is located as long as there is electricity and internet. If the C-level executives still enjoy a city such as London or NY, it doesn't mean that the accounts payable staff need to be in the same building. They can be a couple of hundred miles away and it would make no difference. The art department can be a small office miles from either 'corporate' or accounting. If the CVP of advertising wants to see how the new ad campaign is shaping up, they can have a copy in minutes since it's likely to be in a digital format already or a picture of a hand drawn concept can be photographed and sent along.
Thankyou for a considered reply that appeals to basic principles and the modern business environment.
I was wondering what the change was in the last few years that encouraged the other 'tech' companies to stop renting in the area in question. In the UK if a company accepts state aid, there are conditions along the lines of penalties for early exit from schemes or projects.
Texas pays California corporations to relocate to the state. I would know I was one of the people who would take their calls when they would solicit the company I used to work for.
Every week they would call with a new offer. They also make that business sign a nondisclosure agreement when they receive state aid.
That is something that Tesla is most certainly under contract and is why Elon never talks about the why he really left California. He can’t.
"That is something that Tesla is most certainly under contract and is why Elon never talks about the why he really left California"
The city of Austin gave Elon $65mn in tax abatements and other inducements to build a factory there. That's public information as the city can't keep that secret. Elon moved HQ as part of a pissing match when he was told he needed to shut down just like everybody else during the pandemic. He's on record as dismissing Covid and then claiming it was over when he said it was and many other statements in that vein via Twitter. California is also very pro-employee and with all of the lawsuits being brought against Tesla for harassment that he couldn't have dismissed or handled via arbitration he needed to start moving before one of those cases wound up going against him in a very major way. I'm really surprised that the Fremont assembly plant hasn't be moved yet. It never made sense to start with other than it being originally a car plant and he may have picked it up very cheaply. The area is on the edge of Silicon Valley and a very expensive place to operate a business. Many times so for a really large operation.
"Do they understand that they are leaving some of the best year-round weather in the world for some of the most extreme weather in the US?"
They could also be leaving to a place where they have a hope of owning a home, saving for retirement and their kids don't have to navigate night soil on the pavements as they go to school.
The only thing keeping twitter afloat is the power hungry who see it as the last place they can reach enough people to swing votes, with the demise of Facebook and its descent in to VR madness it is pretty much the only singular platform left that has a complete demographic. Everything else will become impossible to infiltrate using money with enough clout to make a difference as it is either part of a fediverse system or is only populated by a narrow age band. Eg. Middle aged and elderly on facebook, youngsters on tiktok or instagram, no ways in to discord or twitch. Wouldnt surprise me if Musk has been leveraged to the point that if he doesn't bend to the financier's whims over how twitter works that he could easily lose Tesla. His comments seem to suggest he has little say in its running and sounds more like puppeteering from idiotic right-wing sound bites or from a Q-Anon poster.
If he moves to Texas, good riddance!
I would not be surprised if Twitter ends up being operated out of a lot in an abandoned strip-mall somewhere in rural Texas at some point in the next year or two.
Of course he wouldn't need beds if his solution wasn't fewer people doing more work (over work), and not necessarily competently. He'd also have advertisers if he didn't have some warped idea of free speech that bans his critics but maintains Nazis etc are just fine.
Musk is doing nothing wrong here. There may be some minor regulation of some oppressive fascist government that he's run afoul of, but there's nothing morally wrong with him offering employees the option to sleep at work if they want to. It does save workers having to face the psychotic homeless, the piles of human feces and used needles they have to deal with between the door at the twitter building and the building they live in. If he wants to move the twitter HQ to another state, good for him. Let's see what happens to the workers paradise the Peoples' Republic of California when all the businesses are chased out by high taxes and oppressive regulation.
"Texas has higher taxes than California, and they hurt the middle class more."
Which taxes are you thinking of? California is in the top three at least for income taxes, but at the bottom of the list for property taxes. If you earn a lot of money, you many not want to be in CA. If you are retired and want a nice home where the climate is very nice, CA might be a good place. Sales tax in LA county is over 10%, but around 7% in many other places. The minimum wage set for burger flippers in some towns is an effective tax on those that enjoy a quick meal for lunch.
I see articles that lay out what property taxes can be across the US and another that lists income taxes and yet others that show where the highest sales taxes are, but I've yet to see a comprehensive article that lists all of the most common taxes for specific locations. What's taxed and how much can have an impact that depends on what phase of life a person is in.
You absolutely know nothing about what you’re talking about. Texas requires all of those companies from California through the Texas Enterprise fund.
You should Google it you might learn there’s a new dimension to the store you didn’t realize.
It doesn’t make any logical sense why anyone would leave the tyranny of California to relocate to Austin Texas? Do you even know enough about the subject at hand to know what I’m talking about here? Let me explain it if you don’t. Austin is the most California like and expensive city in Texas. That’s like complaining about the frying pan and then jumping into the oven for relief.
All he has to do is keep the servers running and the thought police out of it.
The revenue will pick back up as it does have a couple of people still using it.
Musk is not stupid enough to lose the position of trust put in him by venture capitalists.
The rest well they can f off.
This is what the mega rich do all the time.
Why does every media outlet now demand his demise?
"...you haven't managed to figure out cause and effect"
I've been working on that one for half a century. Its all about the context and the confounding variables. Chuck in a few DAGs for laughs.
Seriously, success and failure is so path dependent I suspect that it is indistinguishable from random. BUT doing a Ratner will certainly damage the business so I find myself in overall agreement with DryBones.
"Musk is not stupid enough to lose the position of trust put in him by venture capitalists."
He better not. Some of the investors that are part of Twitter are well known for taking very direct action. The banks that have loaned Elon money are already reconfiguring those loans to give them more security since they can't farm out the risk at this time.
"All he has to do is keep the servers running and the thought police out of it.
The revenue will pick back up as it does have a couple of people still using it."
All he has to do is that stuff fast enough that he still has a few employees left around to keep the whole machine going.
Its not unknown in startup culture for people who are working late to bed down somewhere rather than drive home tired.
Judging by the tone of a lot of comments here it seems that most people are unaware of startup culture and how it works. There will be times when there's way to much work to do in a normal workday but if you're interested in the future of the company (or, preferably have a stake in that future thanks to generous stock options) needs must. Its what makes this place what it is; it has absolutely nothing with knowing 'technology' or anything like that, its all about the drive to get somewhere. For better or worse Musk is confronting directly a sort of culture of entitlement; this isn't a Twitter problem, it occurs in any company that's grown, especially if its grown very quickly.
My remarks don't mean I'm just a Musk fanboi, a shill. Its just that I've been working in this culture for 35 years or so and know how things work. I'm like everyone else, I love being overpaid and if my working environment looks like a cross between a shopping mall and an amusement park, that's great too. But I'm also a realist. I've seen how quickly Good Times turn bad and in my experience its always a case of people losing sight of what a company's prime purpose is -- it has to make money.
As for the silly rents, I live down the other end of the 101. Our house prices and rents are also silly (although not that much different from current UK costs). The Bay Area has always been a bit insane, I wouldn't be a real estate investor there. What people don't realize, though, is that Twitter doesn't need to be in the Bay Area. It could be anywhere and there are lots of places, including inside CA, that would love to host the company. (It is one way to houseclean employees -- move the facilities and use relocation to winnow out who you don't want).
Its not unknown in startup culture for people who are working late to bed down somewhere rather than drive home tired.
Judging by the tone of a lot of comments here it seems that most people are unaware of startup culture and how it works.
Twitter isn't a startup. And these employees aren't going to be rewarded for getting in on the ground floor. Sleeping at work so they can put in more hours to help the company succeed isn't a choice they are going to make. I would guess that most of the employees that do the high risk/high reward type of jobs have already moved on to actual startups. They certainly wouldn't be there giving free labor to make the second richest man in the world more money.
The people who work long hours at a startup are doing so for a reason. Maybe they believe heavily in the potential of the product. Maybe they really want it for their own use. Or of course the most common: they aren't paid a lot in cash but if the company proves to be a commercial success, their stock options will make them really wealthy, and that won't happen unless they can get to market right now. In each case, the individual employee has some pretty good reasons to want to go above and beyond to the point of working ridiculous hours for a while. That's also a good point: it's just for a while. After the IPO or the next round of hires or the results come in about what they're going to focus on, the constant marathon sessions are expected to calm down, as well as the rewards.
If you were employed by Twitter, why would you expect any of this? Other than continuing to get a salary, do you expect to gain from a company that already has its market established, isn't launching anything speculative that is likely to make a lot of money quickly, and of which you don't own any stock? Do you even expect bonuses or raises given that a lot of people have been fired in order to avoid paying them even the same as they were making? Do you expect anything to compensate you for having to work twice as much (if not more) than you were working before? Do you see any horizon after which this all goes back to normal working hours? I think any employee who isn't crazy would answer all those questions in the negative. Employees who are in this for a job paying for their lifestyle where they don't want to work that much would be disappointed. Any employee who is willing to subordinate their life for speculative large rewards, as in a startup, would be disappointed. They're left with people who don't have a choice, and those people will start to react as soon as they can find one.
I don't actually agree with your post but it's well argumented, hence the vote.
Anyway, I'm not familiar with the area where they are located but I understand the rents are prohibitive and I don't know how much of a misery commutes might be. In that context, I think I'd be happy to have the option to test at work for 2 or 3 days a week. It might be a net improvement to my quality of life.
> do you expect to gain from a company that already has its market established,
I have the impression we haven't seen the last of it.
If you have other disagreements, I'd be happy to discuss them. As for your current points:
"I have the impression we haven't seen the last of [Twitter]"
I wouldn't bet on that, given how much damage has been done, but let's assume you're right. The newly slimmed company manages to make a fantastic new product, get revenues up, pay off their massive debt and gain in value so it's worth what Musk paid for it, yay. I, as an employee who built all that, get exactly what from that? I continued to get a salary, which was the same thing I got when I was working a normal full-time set of hours instead of no breaks startup-style work. Unlike in a startup, I don't own any of the new Twitter, because Musk took it private. Maybe he'll start giving out bonuses because it's been so successful, but he hasn't even promised that (and if he did, given how quickly he's broken all the other promises, I wouldn't count on it). Twitter's success is not the employees' success as it would be in a startup.
"I understand the rents are prohibitive and I don't know how much of a misery commutes might be. In that context, I think I'd be happy to have the option to test at work for 2 or 3 days a week."
There are some benefits to having the option, certainly. The problem is being forced into a situation where it's needed. If your schedule consists only of work and sleeping, that's not a good sign. If the beds were there for people to take some naps, that would be a perk that some people would enjoy and most others would ignore. That's not why the beds are there. They're there because Musk thinks coding volume is his problem (it's not) and doesn't care about the long-term viability of the people he wants to build the systems he will benefit from.
> If your schedule consists only of work and sleeping, that's not a good sign.
We don't know what their schedule consists of or what their arrangements are (at least I don't)
They might be putting in more hours and getting paid more (rather than spending that time on a pointless commute), or they might be working more productively, or they might be accumulating their time off and taking longer weekends, … who knows.
And if they are putting in more hours, they must have some incentive to do so, otherwise why would you do it? (Yes, I know about the downturn but there's still a shortage of IT types, plus if labour regulations are what they are in the US, maybe the people themselves should do something about it)
> If the beds were there for people to take some naps, that would be a perk that some people would enjoy and most others would ignore. That's not why the beds are there. They're there because Musk thinks coding volume is his problem (it's not) and doesn't care about the long-term viability of the people he wants to build the systems he will benefit from.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind offering appropriate references to back up these assertions:
* That's not why the beds are there
* They're there because Musk thinks coding volume is his problem
* doesn't care about the long-term viability of the people he wants to build the systems
"We don't know what their schedule consists of or what their arrangements are (at least I don't)"
I don't know the specifics, but I don't think it's that hard to connect Musk's vague statement of "long hours at high intensity" and the fact that they brought in beds to arrive at a rather grim picture.
"They might be putting in more hours and getting paid more"
They might, but I'm pretty sure they're not getting paid more, given how eager management have been to fire everyone else. These workers are mostly earning salaries, which means no overtime. I haven't seen any reports of a round of raises or bonuses. Have you?
"they might be working more productively,": I wouldn't count on that. Denying people work-life balance tends not to end that way.
"or they might be accumulating their time off and taking longer weekends,": Again, salaried workers don't get time off in compensation for long hours. I'm sure they are saving up what they normally get because they have no other choice, at least until the company switches to a model where they can no longer accumulate any (just a prediction, as I haven't heard them plan this yet).
"And if they are putting in more hours, they must have some incentive to do so, otherwise why would you do it?"
I don't expect many to keep doing it for long. As for why you would do it, you would do it if the job is necessary for something you rely on until such a time as you get another, hence why many of the employees are on visas that make it difficult to simply switch jobs.
"I'm sure you wouldn't mind offering appropriate references to back up these assertions:"
It's not like every plan of Musk's is fully documented in public. Most of it has been leaked in vague terms. I can't give you a direct citation for each thing, and you know that well.
* That's not why the beds are there
Derived from the demand for long hours, which is compatible with having someone working all day and sleeping at the office to make sure they're working when they would have been commuting, but less compatible with letting employees take a nap during a normal work day.
* They're there because Musk thinks coding volume is his problem
Musk wants developers to work much harder than they are because he thinks that will solve problems. This despite the fact that Twitter's problems are not due to missing features or the like. It's pretty clear he doesn't have a great understanding of what caused Twitter not to make a large profit, as focusing on things that generate revenue would do more than insisting on more code written.
* doesn't care about the long-term viability of the people he wants to build the systems
Long hours at high intensity does bad things to people. It's called burn out. Anyone who actually goes along with the demands for a long time is likely to find this out. He has the intelligence necessary to understand this relatively basic concept, but he doesn't care.
> I don't think it's that hard to connect
The issue is not whether it's hard to make an inference… the issue is that an inference is not actual knowledge and may not be correct.
> They might, but I'm pretty sure […]
> I'm sure they […]
> I don't expect many to […]
> Derived from […]
So in other words, you're speculating, correct?
> I can't give you a direct citation for each thing, and you know that well.
No, I did not know that well. I sincerely was hoping you knew more than I did. Maybe you do and that's why your speculation is more pessimistic than mine, but you have only offered your conclusions, not their factual basis.
There is one point that you bring up that IMO is both factual and relevant:
> hence why many of the employees are on visas that make it difficult to simply switch jobs.
That is certainly a concern, albeit not specific to twitter. It is an aspect of what I mentioned about US labour regulations, but with one distinction: the people affected do not, in this case, have it in their power to push for a change via the normal democratic process.
> Anyway, I'm not familiar with the area where they are located but I understand the rents are prohibitive and I don't know how much of a misery commutes might be.
I used to have to spend time out at Moffett Field back in the '80s. Even back then the commute from our hotel in San Jose (anything closer would blow our daily stipend) could be 45 minutes or more in bumper-to-bumper traffic. I can't imagine those commutes have gotten any better though there always BART that some can take advantage of. I felt really bad for the FTEs who were commuting from Stockton (or farther) where they'd found affordable housing.
> Is Twitter a start up?
Depends on how deep the culture and operational change goes, it could well be considered one, at least in some aspects.
> The only people left working at Twitter are the people who are on the H1-B visa.
Do you have a reference for that?
> They have very little choice.
That is indeed a problem. For a country that sees it fit to lecture others about human rights (when it suits them), having those indentured labour visas is not acceptable (then again, this is the same country that has Guantanamo and persecutes whistleblowers).
"move the facilities and use relocation to winnow out who you don't want)."
A certain amount of wheat will get lost in the chaff. Elon has already purged a whole bunch of people and some of them turned out to be important to being able to access the SF headquarters. Some people can't move due to family or their specific circumstances. I can understand this as I am in the same sort of position right at the moment where moving could cost me a stack of bank notes this high. Should be sorted by spring, but Elon isn't known for giving more than a couple of days of notice as he's not a "planner". Even offering a generous amount of money and support to the people he needs to have move with the company may not help. Some of those people might be excellent candidates for working at home/remotely, but we know Elon doesn't believe in that sort of thing.
If he went back on his "no working from home" decision, he'd probably insist on installing cameras in employees home so Big Bro Elon can watch you.
Ideally ones with Tasers built in for "prodding" those he doesn't feel are working hard and long enough.
Our sick society has supported traditionally the pathology of so-called "success."
Times are changing in the U.S., albeit slowly. Its job market shows today that a greater percentage of smart people who made the mistake of working for a creep no longer stay.
When we write tech history, let us emphasize the exploitation realized by the "successful."
Also, let us apply to them some apt monikers and titles, to emphasize unsavory traits. For example:
- Gene(s)-Missing Musk the Maniacal
- Bezos the Bald, Ruthless Pee-Bottle Clown
- Communist-Chinese-Slavemonger-and-Lesbian Tim Cook
- Septic-Tank-Smell-Salesman-Who-Woz-Technically-Inept Steve Jobs
- Ugly-Old-Witch-Rich-Through-Predatory-Licensing Bill Gates the Attorney's Son
So, funny thing about Steve Jobs.
I haven't looked into this extensively, but I recall reading about how he was quizzing the product engineers about the iPhone, or iPod or something or other... And one poor fool was telling him what it was supposed to do. And he tore them a new one because it didn't do ANY of that.
If we want to say that all Steve Jobs did was make Apple products do what they said on the tin, we also have to remember that at the time that was all it took for them to be better than 95% of the other offerings in the markets.
I've said before that Apple weren't magical, they weren't innovative. They just weren't willing to suck. And that's all it took.
Holy moly. Opening bid for some chairs is $50 and only $25 for the coffee gear. I think if you know somebody, you can get the unsold chairs after the auction if you promise to take a big pile of them so they don't have be be handled or stored. I got a couple of Aeon chairs that way after the dotcom bust.
I am with Elon on this. Codes that have nothing to do with safety or incorporate common sense. The city knows the situation is one of emergency. Pull the plug, leave the city. Not sure if Bentonville for Walmart is still cheap, but North Virginia or Clay City beckon. or Tx. Mature businesses need to ditch over the top expenses, including fancy HQ.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
