I think I would love to work in an environment like you describe, but my one experience in an environment like this before was that people really emphasize working hard over working smart. (Also, if I'm not allowed to push back against management, that would be a deal breaker) I wonder what they do to stop and think of new approaches to work when everyone is tired all the time working 12 hours days. Often I find I can save 10's or hundreds of hours just from taking a break and thinking about the problem differently. Maybe I should interview to see what it's like out of the horses mouth and not rumors on the web, but my impression of the culture he is proposing is long hours for the vision, not because the work itself is engaging.

> Elon puts a lot of focus on ability and skill over formalities and organizations

I'm curious what this means to you, because when I see people from inside Twitter correct him on Twitter, with specific technical statements describing what's going on—and then he fires them—that seems like formalities way outranking ability and skill.

This ^^^ My answer to this question would have been a VERY weak "Yes" before the Twitter disaster. Now that we're seeing the true Elon alongside real engineer feedback, it's a HARD no.

You don't know anything about this guy, his employment history, if was underperforming in the past, etc. You read yet another hit piece on Elon because he's taking out the trash at Twitter and all of a sudden this one example has TOTALLY changed your opinion. You are being manipulated.

> You don't know anything about this guy, his employment history, if was underperforming in the past, etc.

I don't, but then given Elon has been CEO for all of 2 weeks—neither does he.

> You are being manipulated.

As are you.

Look at the HN new Tab. See all the negative press about Elon and Twitter. You think this is organic?

> See all the negative press about Elon and Twitter. You think this is organic?

Well, it certainly hasn't been going great. I have no idea if it's organic, but the tech press reporting bad news about an ongoing tire fire is expected. Why would you even need to manipulate the news, when the company itself is generating bad news at such a rapid clip?

Yes. A lot of people are being affected by his poor choices and a lot of people are watching said outcomes play out. This means there will be a significant number of people writing about it.

Neither does Elon.

You really can’t conceive of a world where Elon’s actions soiled his reputation?

You think all of this is just some narrative being pushed, or are you just sensing a shift in public opinion and since it’s a deviation from the norm you are assigning it to some unknown “force?”

Has his management style changed? There are plenty of stories about him cracking the whip, being a total authoritarian jerk, etc at Tesla. Where was the outrage then? The only think that had changed is he's fallen out of favor and "public opinion" is being shifted on purpose.

that reminds me of something interesting I got from reading the Walter Isaacson bio on Steve Jobs. WI generally portrays Jobs as petulant, narcissistic, and mercurial, but one area which Jobs was willing to back down was when it came to conflicts about product quality: in several instances in the book, an Apple employee gets into an argument with Jobs about what design choices are better for the user, and when the employee gave a clearly irrefutable argument, Jobs actually backed down and acknowledged that the employee's argument was superior, and I took this as evidence that, as egotistical and self-centered as Jobs was known to be, he really did put product quality and UX first.

On a related note, I heard in a podcast recently that Walter Isaacson has been following Musk around for a bio.

I always get the feeling Musk is cosplaying the "startup mentality" without wanting to sacrifice his own need to bully people into submission.

"I'm curious what this means to you, because when I see people from inside Twitter correct him on Twitter, with specific technical statements describing what's going on—and then he fires them—that seems like formalities way outranking ability and skill."

I'm curious... do you not understand why this person was fired? Do you think it was because he corrected Elon? That is not the relevant part of the statement.

If I publicly corrected my CEO, and did it with a soupcon of arrogance to boot, I would expect to be fired. I do not work for Elon, and I make this statement independent of whoever I happen to be working for right now.

Moreover, it would not just be because the CEO had his precious fee fees hurt and he was lashing out in anger. There are perfectly sensible business reasons why it is an unacceptable risk to have someone running around publicly "correcting" the CEO while having a position within the organization. There are even legal reasons, with regard to what public statements made by an employee can legally commit the company too, and the kinds of ammunition it can hand to any future lawsuits. (Making public statements like this is not exactly like taking the stand in your own trial without a lawyer, but it's not entirely dissimilar from it either!) There is no way my value to the company, no matter how good I am, could overcome the business risks associated with such a loose cannon. It is way easier to destroy than to create. Even the best creator can't help but be able to destroy more than they can create. Businesses can't afford some random guy to anoint himself the face of the company just because he write code goodly.

Like Elon, hate him, I don't care. My feelings are decidedly mixed and probably trend negative overall, though not to the extent the HN gestalt would necessarily like, and for different reasons. But if you look at this interaction in befuddlement, you need to understand what's really going on and remove your hatred from Elon from the equation, because you need to know that you, too can get fired from your job for doing the exact same thing, even if you work for a company that isn't run by Elon. In fact most people who understand this sort of thing would see the CEO not firing you as being a show of extreme weakness from the CEO.

I mean, if that's how you want to go out, by all means, be my guest. There's a time and a place for it. Maybe you would personally judge this as one of them. I don't, "nuh-uh we don't make that many RPC calls for that" is not the hill I would choose to die on, but there are hills worth dying on; "whistleblowing" looks a lot like this and can be very valuable to society. I'm not saying this is never a valid move; I want the reader who is befuddled by Elon firing this person to understand the why, and that it is not even remotely Elon-specific, so that if you ever choose to do this sort of thing, at least your model of what is likely to happen in the world is accurate. I have no problem with people making bold choices, heck, I think our society is too risk averse to bold choices, but I think people ought to have accurate understandings of the cost/benefits of such choices.

>There are perfectly sensible business reasons why it is an unacceptable risk to have someone running around publicly "correcting" the CEO while having a position within the organization

especially when the CEO is spouting a ton of bullshit and doesn't want his aura of perfection impigned in any way.

Exactly. I've publicly face-to-face buttheaded with the CEO of a very large tech company (that you have 100% heard of) at a very large townhall meeting. I did it because it's an internal event so my chance of getting fired is significantly lower (but still not zero!)

But doing it in public, sharing internal data, and with the tone the guy used on a brand new owner? I don't know what he expected. Getting fired is the expected outcome.

I think you are broadly correct. However, recall Elon's takeover of Twitter was all about "free speech" so in my opinion it's a bad look. A "bigger man" would say "put some time on my calendar and I'd love to hear more". I value flat hierarchy companies where you don't just blindly kowtow to your leaders.

If you think this is about "kowtowing", you're still totally in the wrong headspace and completely fail to understand the situation.

Elon basically can't not fire the guy. It wasn't even an option, so criticizing him for failing to take the non-option is missing the point. It wouldn't have been an option for Jack, it wouldn't have been an option for any other CEO. You don't get license to speak publicly for the company just because you don't like the CEO.

If anything, sorry to the HN gestalt, this is a prime example of just how out-of-touch with reality Silicon Valley liberals have become, that they are so secure that they will be protected because they have the "right opinions" or hate the "right people" that they be surprised that they are fired for mouthing off in public at the company CEO. So disconnect from reality that they have a 180 degree wrong read of the situation. And this is not special. It is completely and utterly a mundane fact of life. This person isn't being specially persecuted by the horribleevilElon. This person is just living a normal life the rest of us live, and as I said, there are indeed good and sensible reasons people live this way. Anyone who is just shocked, shocked by this firing is very out of touch with the entire rest of the world, and I'm trying to help at least a fraction of such people reconnect with reality before this bites them personally.

This is a pretty context-free take on the matter. Elon Musk effectively slandered the engineers on the team with incorrect technical statements that implied they were incompetent. He told all future employers that the engs from Twitter did something stupid that they didn't actually do.

It might make sense for the company to fire employees for public corrections, but it also makes sense for the employees to correct these lies for their long term career prospects. This entire scenario was created by Elon Musk. Your context-free take implies that the employees damaged the company unnecessarily when it was a reasonable reaction to targeted slander. Avoiding the liability of this public correction was easy, none of these employees were new, what was new was Elon's unprovoked slander. Maybe if you don't want the legal liability of an employee saying things that might be ammunition, don't do it to them first.

If you want to know what happens when this kind of slander goes unchecked, look up Mick Gordon. On top of his professional reputation being muddied, he received harassment and death threats over a company's false allegation that he was responsible for the incompetent failure of the Doom Eternal soundtrack.

Good point, now do one for the ones who were fired for complaining on internal communication.

Great speech, explain this one: https://twitter.com/skilldrick/status/1592525923475390464

> My twitter account was protected at the time, so I can only assume this was for not showing 100% loyalty in slack. I’ve heard the same thing has happened to many others now.

No public corrections, only internal Slack messages.

> I'm curious what this means to you

In short, it means that doing things better (e.g. making a piece of software faster) for the sake of things being done better is praised, not tolerated, as is the case in the many "let's just ship it, we'll fix it later" software companies.

> when I see people from inside Twitter correct him on Twitter, with specific technical statements describing what's going on—and then he fires them

As far as I remember, the guy just said something along the lines "as the person who actually works on this, it's not 1000 RPCs.", to which Elon asked for a specific number, the guy replied with vague answers like "it only does like 50 RPCs all of which are async, but the software is full of bloat and various features slowing them down" which sounded nothing like "specific technical statements" to me. But I can't find the Tweet thread right now, so I won't stand by this opinion completely.

Regardless - even assuming the guy is 100% in the right - I don't think that publicly going against your boss in such a passive-aggressive way, at the same time portraying him as "the guy that doesn't know what he's talking about", is a right way of handling false information. Maybe another engineer told him 1000s of RPCs are being made, or he just made a hyperbole for the sake of explanation. Benefit of doubt, and all that.

Being rude will get you fired, no matter how right you are, that's kind of a given.

How can you characterize Twitter's current modus operandi under Musk as anything but "let's just ship it, we'll fix it later"? They're on iteration 5 or 6 of the checkmarks within the last week.

I have no reliable information about the current modus operandi under Musk, nor about modus operandi of any of his companies. I just have a vague feeling derived from the random information about his companies and employees I've read over the years.

It's very possible that it's just smoke and mirrors, but if I were given an offer, I'd at least try it for a while. If it's true, I gain a lot - if it's false, I gain a useful reference in my CV.

you give him benefit of the doubt, a bit too much.

Frankly, if I were evaluating a job candidate and I saw that they joined Twitter after Elon, I’d see it as huge red flag.

Frankly, if someone judges people for working somewhere, regardless of the circumstances, I would see that as a huge red flag.

working somewhere, briefly. not too much of a red flag

working somewhere a while and thriving in that environment? But I get it, ethics can easily fly out the window when you choose, especially when there's alot of money in play to bribe your feelings.

If you're impying recruiters would see someone thriving in Twitter under Elon as a bad thing, you're either deeply deluded and have no idea how recruitment works, projecting your own subjective feelings onto the whole industry, or a paid shill hired to badmouth Elon on the internet.

Let me clarify my original comment. It's not just about the company name on your résumé. It's about what your stint there says about you. If I sensed that a candidate saw the environment that Elon is creating at Twitter as a positive thing? Huge red flag. And if someone joined after seeing how Elon wants to run things, I'm gonna assume they're into it. I don't want that productivity-destroying toxicity anywhere near me or my team.

With regard to how recruitment works, I've never been on a team where a recruiter got final say over whether someone is hired. As an engineer, I've had a lot of say in that decision many times. As for whether those feelings are projected, well… just look at which way the sentiment is going in this thread. Would you really want to take that gamble?

I'll work wherever I want, thank you for your input. If you consider a person "toxic" for suceeding in whatever environment you dislike personally, perhaps it is you who is toxic.

If you want to work for Elon, go for it! I’m not trying to dissuade you. But don’t be surprised when people infer from that what type of work environment you value.

Not disagreeing with your vague intuitions but just the point you made about shipping incomplete features and fixing them on the fly. You don't need reliable insider information to know that's what they're doing—you just need to download the Twitter app and watch the verified/official checks changing right in front of you.

This is another point. People who have been at twitter have known what works and what does not. Elon comes out of nowhere, thinks he knows better, and has people actually spend countless hours extra on these stupid ideas. And then spend extra, extra hours to reverse and try something else.

Ridiculous IMO.

When the guy says stupid stuff, it would be "RUDE" to not correct him. But in his opinion, he thinks it is "rude" to correct him.

He is on a power trip.

I second everything you said about fostering a competitive no bs environment. Reminds me of Jeff Bezos. But Musk's behavior is toxic. Treating people outside the firm (like customers getting into accidents with self drive and losing their life, or journalists critiquing his cars) with disrespect and annihilation is one thing. But treating your own people who you rely on to get stuff done, is entirely another. If the head is garbage, the body is too.

Musk is garbage, and when unbridled, we can see it in its full ugliness.

I'm talking specifically about publicly tweeting a passive-aggressive rebuttal whose only purpose is to imply "this guy has no idea what he's talking about", not about correcting people in general. Try doing that when your boss says something "stupid" and see how that goes for you.

I have enough leverage in any conversation, that bosses don't have much choice other than to entertain the idea. I use this "leverage" to build further reputation as the person who only talks in the benefit of others.

But Elon has this "my way or highway" blinded racehorse mentality. He overruns people if he doesn't get his way.

> I have enough leverage in any conversation, that bosses don't have much choice other than to entertain the idea

So you're saying you can be passive-aggressive all you want and your bosses can't fire you?

Well, good for you. You've reached Dr. House status. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Thank you. Funny you mention Dr. House. I never understood his appeal until now.

If that is the case, it sounds like companies then should put a lot more focus on formalities than ability and skill, considering how successful Elon's companies are and have been; success which turns very peculiar under those circumstances when you consider how engineering-oriented they are.

There is, of course, another possibility, which is that Elon does in fact put a lot of focus on ability and skill over formalities, but not in literally every single situation.

Which one do you think is more likely?

You really would want to work yourself down to nothing for the worlds richest man with extremely hand-wavy equity value?

There's a difference between being in a focused envcironment and being in a shitshow. Essentially this message is saying "Hey, I want to be taken advantage of, work me as hard as you want, I want more!!!!"

> You really would want to work yourself down to nothing for the worlds richest man with extremely hand-wavy equity value?

If I'm being challenged enough to have fun, I don't see why not. I like building software, it's my passion, and if I can get paid good money for doing interesting things while working for Elon, then good for him. Especially if the alternative is "do mind-dulling tasks 8 hours a day" for the world's richest men in some other megacorp.

> There's a difference between being in a focused envcironment and being in a shitshow

Yes, I don't want to be in a shitshow, I want to be in a focused environment. I don't see where the disagreement is.

Perhaps you're implying I'm wrong about Musk's places of employment being as I see them - you might as well be right, but you might as well be wrong. Unless I start working for them, I guess I'll never know for sure.

you can also talk with people who've worked there and are still there/left. Basically, you don't spend long at SpaceX if you find mudane things like a good WLB or enjoy being burnt out.

The disagreement here is Twitter is a shitshow under his leadership, and your words come across as you finding that interesting and place where you would like to be.

> The disagreement here is Twitter is a shitshow under his leadership, and your words come across as you finding that interesting and place where you would like to be.

One of the first things he did when he acquired Twitter is point out there are much more managers than engineers. He got rid of many of them. In my opinion, that's a sign of progress towards the more engineering-first environment, not regression.

Is that still your opinion after the past few days? His public behavior?

Interesting that you and many others see this behavior as an admirable trait and not a regression.

With the amount of media attention on him ever since of Twitter acquisition, I expected the "space guy bad" vibe to be much worse. Also take into account that many of these stories might just as well be fabricated. Remember Ligma Johnson?

If you have any concrete examples, with reliable sources (not random Tweets from literal whos or yellow press), I'd love to know about these "horrible things" he's done. Sincere request - I'd love to hate on the guy, I hate billionaires in general, but in his case I just didn't have any real reason so far.

And he kicked out a bunch of engineers as well based on LOC, then immediately tried to hire them back. Like come on, you can’t just go into another company and do massive changes immediately without understanding the whole thing. He is a narcissist man-child.