[sdiacom]

It's interesting how VCs suddenly seem to believe "tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff", now that they can't just show up at a bank and get literal buckloads of other people's money with no justification or due diligence, but were all in on "tech startups must continually grow at any cost" just a few months ago.

Once again, society will be left holding the rich sociopaths' bags and dealing with the externalities of their uncontrolled gambling.

[agrippanux]

I think we can be honest and admit many large tech companies are bloated and can lay off staff - with the proper planning and care. Taking an axe to an org you just took over is typically not associated with proper planning and care.

[sdiacom]

Of course some tech companies are bloated, and of course some other tech companies must grow further. But the tune about what the tech industry as a whole must do seems to suddenly shift, depending on whether it's pump season or dump season.

[jacquesm]

I think the way Twitter is faring is actually proof to the contrary, you can't lay off half your staff and expect the machine to just keep chugging along. You either design it from day #1 to be run with a very tight crew or it becomes a much larger machine with a different kind of profile.

Compare Instagram with Twitter.

[jerlam]

Counterpoint: Netflix, which did a lot of layoffs in the 2000s and as the story goes, redesigned their entire HR process around 'lean'.

[abdabab]

I’m sure Netflix in 2000 had a lot simpler tech stack than Twitter in 2020. However your point is taken.

[fragmede]

I'm not sure. 2000 is pre-AWS which means a lot of easy things were more complicated than they are now. Though Twitter is famously on-prem as well, so maybe they're equivalent?

[abdabab]

My impression is Twitter handles traffic and complexity in a different magnitude than Netflix in the 2000. Internet usage was significantly smaller back then.

On-prem is a good point though. I don’t know a lot about their core infra.