I was thinking 90%. Why can't Twitter operate with three or four hundred employees rather than three or four thousand employees?

From the perspective of the 10% that remain, why would they bother to stay if 90% were cut? Sounds like taking on ten times the day to day workload. In SF, it's not like they couldn't go elsewhere for work.

I would cut 90% of the people and cancel lots and lots of projects.

The people that remain would be well compensated. If you can cut 90% of the workforce and still preserve half the revenue (and that might not be possible), then you can pay each person $1 million per year.

Really though, I just have a hard time understanding what three thousand people are doing to keep Twitter running day after day. I keep coming back to thinking about how Instagram had 15 people working there when Facebook bought them.