> so he is circumventing that California law

Not a Musk fan, but "circumventing" feels a bit weird when he's basically acting in the spirit of it?

Yeah, it sounds like he's complying, which seems like the obvious thing to do. I get that emotions are understandably high, and people think he's some kind of super villain/buffoon simultaneously, but how would it make any sense for him to make that kind of obvious blunder?

The guy is kind of known for making obvious blunders out of the blue or at least acting like he is above things.

I feel like he'd get a lot of pushback all the way up and down the chain of command on this particular blunder, though. It'd be like trying to throw your car into reverse on the highway.. just because you can try to issue the command doesn't mean it'll get carried out

According to the email reported by the BBC[1] they'll be paid until Feb 2nd, so that's more like 90 days. Other severance details not yet known, but as I understand it what's happening today is that they're being given notice, but their formal "employment" doesn't end until the notice period is over.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-63511430

Not really. There are enough Privacy and Security best practices that would tell you that disgruntled employees are the most dangerous threat to a digital infra.

He’s actually complying with the spirit of the law while also doing what I’d prefer he did given the amount of user data that Twitter holds.

No employee with a 60-day payoff is going to win in court when the hourly rate of these people has approached infinity

It is a federal statute. Basically, one of the remedies that courts can impose is that 60 days pay in lieu of notice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...