[gjulianm]

Well, I think the issue is precisely considering Twitter a "simple technology project", and it's the same mistake that Musk does. Twitter isn't a "software and servers business" as he said. Twitter is a social community, and while in some regards it might be easier, it's also far more difficult in others. Just compare how many business and institutions can reliably launch rockets or create cars, and how many can reliably create social networks.

[lelanthran]

> Well, I think the issue is precisely considering Twitter a "simple technology project"

But I didn't call it "simple", I called it "simpler", and it is.

[panda-giddiness]

I think it's somewhat reductionist to call Twitter "simpler". The technical challenges faced by SpaceX, for example, are almost completely orthogonal to those faced by Twitter. Imagine swapping a random engineer at SpaceX with a random software engineer at Twitter -- do you think either would thrive in their new role?

[type-r]

Are you claiming that it's similarly difficult to launch and run a satellite manufacturing / launching company vs. a social network? Wow.

[panda-giddiness]

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that "simpler" is meaningless in this context. The two companies face fundamentally different challenges and require completely separate skill sets. Some people will be better suited for Twitter, whereas some people will be better suited for SpaceX. For the same reason that you shouldn't commission a mathematician to remodel your bathroom, you shouldn't expect the CEO of SpaceX to successfully manage a social media company.

For further reading, I'd recommend this article in the Atlantic. The relevant portion is about midway through.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/elon-musk-...

[gjulianm]

Compare how many companies can reliably launch rockets vs how many can reliably create social networks that aren’t dead in a year. I think it’s clear what’s more difficult

[gjulianm]

Point still stands if you call it a "simpler technology project". It's not about the tech, it's about the community, and communities are far harder to predict and manage than a rocket or a car.

[lelanthran]

> Point still stands if you call it a "simpler technology project".

Which point?

> It's not about the tech, it's about the community, and communities are far harder to predict and manage than a rocket or a car.

While I broadly agree with you, and also agree that twitters founders and/or leaders are better equipped to manage a community than Musk is, I fail to see how having someone with a track record of success (some in turning around failing businesses) automatically dooms the company.

That was the point I was responding to, in the original post. It's also why I ended of with "it takes a special kind of mind to automatically assume something is doomed just because someone with a track record of successes took it over".

[gjulianm]

I don't think Twitter is automatically doomed, but I think there are more things to consider than just Musk's "track record of successes". And one of the important things is that he doesn't look like he actually understands Twitter. He keeps calling it a "software and servers company", keeps talking about "hardcore coding", alienating and angering users and advertisers... People would be be more confident in his abilities if he actually looked humble enough to recognize the parts where his expertise is lacking.