"Deeply depressing" is watching a miner, lumberjack, fisherman, construction worker, etc risk their health and even life for a pittance of a wage.
"Deeply depressing" is seeing how many of them end up walking funny, being deeply in pain, and end up addicted to drugs to cope.
"Deeply depressing" is not watching people who are paid 2x-10x or more society's average having to pull one crunch time in their comfy and safe indoor job.
i don't think thats a healthy way of looking at things, workers being treated unfairly/badly (even if they are privilege) isn't good because normalization of such treatment just makes it easier to do it to more vulnerable workers elsewhere
The majority of humanity is soul-crushingly poor and abused. That doesn't mean I should be able to punch you in the face without complaint or punishment.
truth is somewhere in the middle. '996 culture' white collar work can be quite bad, including health wise even if it is much better compensated. However it is also true that a lot of people in cushy tech jobs can be pretty big divas and severely overstate how stressful their jobs are. I personally know a fair amount of people in the industry who basically work half a job at full pay.
We are all workers on the same side in this sorry story. It is important to realize who the sides are: one is exploiting the other, extracts all their work, gives back the minimum they can, and prevents them from organizing as a group. In-class infighting distracts us from the real issue.
So ... what's the wage cutoff where you're no longer entitled to sane working conditions?
The real "deeply depressing" bit here is how many of us would rather focus on pulling down the top crab than question why we're all in this bucket to begin with.
> So ... what's the wage cutoff where you're no longer entitled to sane working conditions?
Beyond all of the hype and drama, I'm not sure I have good information about what's going on at Twitter and if the conditions are sane or not.
Are employees being told, "sleep at the office for the next week or you're fired"?
Or are employees having the luxury of knowing that at least some layoffs are coming and have a choice to try and deliver something special to make their case? That's arguably incredibly privileged as most people never have foreknowledge about pending layoffs and don't get any last opportunity to show the value they can bring.
So, your answer now is to argue that you don't know whether or not the working conditions are bad, after arguing that they aren't bad enough to entitle people to complain?
Which is it? Why are you now equivocating over this instead of being able to answer for your own conclusions?
Clearly you think the working conditions of Twitter aren't that bad, that was literally the thesis of your first post. Clearly you think that there exists a set of working conditions that are deeply immoral and deserving of at least complaint. That was also the thesis of your first post.
So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?
> Why are you now equivocating over this instead of being able to answer for your own conclusions?
Especially in a fog-of-war sort of situation with a lot of drama where it's hard to tell what claims might be real and fake, I don't know precisely what Twitter's working conditions are like. But even not knowing some nuanced details about life at TwitterHQ right now, I'm very comfortable in saying that the worst case scenario working at Twitter is miles better off than the best case scenario say down in an iron mine.
> So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?
Everybody is entitled to complain and voice their opinion no matter how rich or powerful they are, but I did take a bit of issue with the "deeply depressing" language that was used.
If the tweet had said "On a human level, it's upsetting to see my coworkers stressed out over the impending layoffs" or something to that effect, I can totally empathize. But "deeply depressing" is a bad phrase for this situation.
Are you seriously suggesting that office jobs cannot be abusive and harmful to workers? Or that office workers cannot suffer long term damage to their health (physical and/or mental) due to their working conditions?
> it’s deeply depressing to watch Twitter employees work over the weekend and sleep in the office to push out impossible deliverables
I have enough empathy left to understand that yes, it is depressing to work in a BS project. But I feel the anger is misplaced.
The depressing part is not that Twitter employees are killing themselves to deliver code that no one likes. The depressing part is that Twitter employees are killing themselves to deliver code, full stop. If people did want those "deliverables", it would still be wrong.
Remember, kids: when someone asks you to sleep in the office over the weekend, the correct answer is "an emergency on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine". And then you go home.
It's so important to maintain a healthy work/life balance and to have a healthy distance from work, but in this case the emergency is manufactured and the result of disappointment is being publicly fired. Ie: Go home over the weekend if you want, but you don't come in on Monday if you do. Doesn't make for a healthy workplace, but unfortunately that's the situation Twitter employees now find themselves in.
"an emergency on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on mine".
I honestly don't understand why anyone would be killing themselves over a job at Twitter? Is the work/pay that great?
It seems like there's still a decent job market for developers I just don't really get why anyone would actually be working weekends when Elon has shown he's not really interested in making the company work.
Again - is the pay really all that great, when the job market for devs is actually really quite good? When you could get a new job in really short order? Why would anyone put up with this nonsense?
I've heard a similar sentiment on other forums. I think switching jobs is a big deal for many and takes time, especially if you enjoy the work, like your manager, are paid well, or work well with your team.
From going through the interview process, possibly relocating, and starting from scratch again - I think it's reasonable that some people choose to put up with a lot before they switch.
Exactly. I think switching jobs is a huge pain in the ass. I have a CS degree but I'm not naturally gifted at Leetcoding; however I can manage _with enough practice_. (I work at FAANG.) Also if you found some work you enjoy, with a team you enjoy, finding the same in a new company is not easy.
If this becomes a pattern, that's one thing. But creating an artificial deadline to turn up the heat to help identify who actually does the development is something else. Keep in mind the ridiculous number of employees that they have.
No, it's a terrible idea. You can assign challenging work without requiring working weekends. Or observe performance during actual emergencies. Musk is either an idiot or a bully (probably both), and this is just some dominance game for him.
> The same platform that banned a sitting President.
For repeatedly violating the terms of service, including inciting violence.
Edit:
> I would never hire an ex-Twitter employee. I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking they're too toxic.
So... because you think twitter discriminates on the basis of political viewpoints expressed by individuals, you would discriminate on the basis of mere association with twitter which isn't necessarily held by the individual? That is bracingly hypocritical.
Let's say I don't like political positions taken by Elon. Following your reasoning, I'd want to refuse to hire a twitter (or SpaceX) employee because they worked for him. Is that totally cool now?
Twitter has been a toxic bubble for over a decade. They’re not in the habit of hiring people who don’t fit in with that culture. Same thing happened to Reddit. There are consequences to such negative environments, one being that better run companies will avoid these former employees.
You generalize from executive-level decisions to every rank-and-file employee. I suppose you would refuse to hire anyone who ever lived in San Francisco too.
I can call Trump and his followers many things, but not "politically oppressed." Every single thing he says gets published in every major media outlet. A sitting president doesn't get to operate outside the law or dictate how private companies run their business, a shocking notion to some I suppose.
I wouldn’t hire anyone from SF, no. I would be very wary of the culture they come from and it’s intolerance to anything outside of that bubble.
As for Trump followers, or conservatives in general, not being ‘politically oppressed’, why do you think Gab, Truth Social, Parler, Gettr et al were created?
Plenty of conservatives live in SF and work at tech companies. Stereotyping people based on where they work or live, or have lived in the past, seems ignorant and bigoted to me. I wouldn't hesitate to hire someone who grew up in Kentucky or has different political beliefs than I do. Unless someone can't stop proselytizing at work I don't consider politics or religion grounds for not hiring someone. I certainly don't think my personal prejudices and inferences based on where someone lives or works should come into hiring decisions.
Conservatives/Republicans make up a minority political bloc in the US, yet right now control the Senate, the Supreme Court, likely the House after next week. Fox News remains on the air and very popular. Trump seems to enjoy as much support and media attention as ever. I don't understand how that counts as "politically oppressed." Finding some people or some companies that don't share your views doesn't equal oppression. That "the right" could at least attempt to build their own social media platforms as you listed argues against actual oppression (compare to actual political oppression in China or Iran for reference). That those social media platforms mostly failed says something, I can't say what, but I know that Twitter employees and San Franciscans didn't sabotage Parler or Truth Social.
You're saying the quiet part loud. Conservative support for Musk's takeover was never about the freedom of speech, it's about controlling the platform and silencing dissent. Parler, Gab et al aren't about free speech, they blatantly censor anything to their left. Contrast that to the years of handwringing over trump's repeated policy violations before he was finally banned for using the platform to stage a coup attempt. You accuse twitter of being toxic and intolerant but look at your own writing here, it's nothing but intolerance.
I can’t believe this twitter saga is so one sided on HN. The layoffs have been in the cards for weeks. The individuals working through the weekend are doing it because they want to keep their jobs/ are excited about the future of the company.
You don’t need to feel sorry for these people. They’re making individual choices.
I saw a tweet with a few thousand likes/retweets talking about how a user was fired by Elon for sticking up for himself. They of course later admitted that they made it the fuck up and don't work for twitter a while after it went viral
76 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadjavascript:h=['nitter.it','nitter.snopyta.org','nitter.net']; location.href=location.href.replace(window.location.host,h[Math.floor(Math.random()*h.length)]);
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nitter-redire...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nitter-redirect/mo...
> since you don't have to pay anything
Rule #1 of Web 2.0: if you aren’t paying, you’re the product. Time, attention, data collection.
So sure, I don’t pay for Twitter.
And cattle don’t pay for pasture.
"Deeply depressing" is seeing how many of them end up walking funny, being deeply in pain, and end up addicted to drugs to cope.
"Deeply depressing" is not watching people who are paid 2x-10x or more society's average having to pull one crunch time in their comfy and safe indoor job.
abuse is abuse, full stop
The real "deeply depressing" bit here is how many of us would rather focus on pulling down the top crab than question why we're all in this bucket to begin with.
Beyond all of the hype and drama, I'm not sure I have good information about what's going on at Twitter and if the conditions are sane or not.
Are employees being told, "sleep at the office for the next week or you're fired"?
Or are employees having the luxury of knowing that at least some layoffs are coming and have a choice to try and deliver something special to make their case? That's arguably incredibly privileged as most people never have foreknowledge about pending layoffs and don't get any last opportunity to show the value they can bring.
Which is it? Why are you now equivocating over this instead of being able to answer for your own conclusions?
Clearly you think the working conditions of Twitter aren't that bad, that was literally the thesis of your first post. Clearly you think that there exists a set of working conditions that are deeply immoral and deserving of at least complaint. That was also the thesis of your first post.
So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?
Especially in a fog-of-war sort of situation with a lot of drama where it's hard to tell what claims might be real and fake, I don't know precisely what Twitter's working conditions are like. But even not knowing some nuanced details about life at TwitterHQ right now, I'm very comfortable in saying that the worst case scenario working at Twitter is miles better off than the best case scenario say down in an iron mine.
> So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?
Everybody is entitled to complain and voice their opinion no matter how rich or powerful they are, but I did take a bit of issue with the "deeply depressing" language that was used.
If the tweet had said "On a human level, it's upsetting to see my coworkers stressed out over the impending layoffs" or something to that effect, I can totally empathize. But "deeply depressing" is a bad phrase for this situation.
And it seems like you’re suggesting they don’t. Or maybe the implication is they’re too stupid to realize how bad their “working conditions” are.
I have enough empathy left to understand that yes, it is depressing to work in a BS project. But I feel the anger is misplaced.
The depressing part is not that Twitter employees are killing themselves to deliver code that no one likes. The depressing part is that Twitter employees are killing themselves to deliver code, full stop. If people did want those "deliverables", it would still be wrong.
Remember, kids: when someone asks you to sleep in the office over the weekend, the correct answer is "an emergency on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine". And then you go home.
"an emergency on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on mine".
Which is great until you get fired for that, and realize that most companies have put hiring freezes in place.
It's depressing.
It seems like there's still a decent job market for developers I just don't really get why anyone would actually be working weekends when Elon has shown he's not really interested in making the company work.
Or are we talking about the non-devs here?
From going through the interview process, possibly relocating, and starting from scratch again - I think it's reasonable that some people choose to put up with a lot before they switch.
Musk is cementing his reputation as a bully and a cheapass who would rather ruin lives than pay severance.
For repeatedly violating the terms of service, including inciting violence.
Edit:
> I would never hire an ex-Twitter employee. I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking they're too toxic.
So... because you think twitter discriminates on the basis of political viewpoints expressed by individuals, you would discriminate on the basis of mere association with twitter which isn't necessarily held by the individual? That is bracingly hypocritical.
Let's say I don't like political positions taken by Elon. Following your reasoning, I'd want to refuse to hire a twitter (or SpaceX) employee because they worked for him. Is that totally cool now?
I can call Trump and his followers many things, but not "politically oppressed." Every single thing he says gets published in every major media outlet. A sitting president doesn't get to operate outside the law or dictate how private companies run their business, a shocking notion to some I suppose.
As for Trump followers, or conservatives in general, not being ‘politically oppressed’, why do you think Gab, Truth Social, Parler, Gettr et al were created?
Conservatives/Republicans make up a minority political bloc in the US, yet right now control the Senate, the Supreme Court, likely the House after next week. Fox News remains on the air and very popular. Trump seems to enjoy as much support and media attention as ever. I don't understand how that counts as "politically oppressed." Finding some people or some companies that don't share your views doesn't equal oppression. That "the right" could at least attempt to build their own social media platforms as you listed argues against actual oppression (compare to actual political oppression in China or Iran for reference). That those social media platforms mostly failed says something, I can't say what, but I know that Twitter employees and San Franciscans didn't sabotage Parler or Truth Social.
You don’t need to feel sorry for these people. They’re making individual choices.
I have gone through acquisition(s), even after a quarter you have no clue what is happening.
And these, one of the best paid, workers had to turn up to work for one weekend and the journos are deeply concerned?
Is there nothing more concerning around tech today?
is it possible it's just one isolated team with a rogue employee?