my anecdote, i dealt with 2 managers, 2 tech leads, an architect type person that would jump in randomly, the skip level that would jump in, plus if i got embedded on a project, i had more leads, a pm, more managers to deal with. when i first started at twitter i was 3 people removed from jack, when i left, i couldn't even tell you what the chain was anymore.

to the second point, i dont think i had a single good manager the entire time, i had a lot. the only one that wasnt terrible was the one that phoned it in and didn't bother me and just let me work. i never reached out to a manager there for technical advice.

To get real numbers first we have to parse if he meant meant product manager, program manager, ux manager, and account manager, or just engineering manager.

They have people skills; they're good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Appreciate the reference. Tom was an engineering liaison, not manager though

Of course he meant every employee with a "manager" title. And take "seems" to mean "I doubled the real number for effect".

I assume it's a way of saying engineering is a tiny part of the organization.

I think Musk is a master of tapping into public sentiment.

Griping about the uselessness of management is precisely the kind of folk wisdom that gets passed around. It's fun to divide the world into do-ers and managers, both because it rights the uncomfortable social hierarchy and encourages action over in-action.

He didn't mean anything. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He called their PhD turned engineer turned turned CTO turned CEO a "MBA type" and was too embarrassed to ask him any technical questions.

I think that question is indicative of the problem.

I would not be so quick to call it an exaggeration.

Consider - how many new features or bug fixes has Twitter rolled out in the last decade? How much work would that actually take?

Also consider - how many moderators does Twitter employ? How are they kept even remotely in line?