18 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I would think something like that would take some time.

 

Out of curiosity, why the big "uproar” over him buying Twitter?  I’m guessing it’s been politicized?  Another Right Vs Left issue? 

Why is notable that a guy who paid $44B for one of the most popular social media platforms is mismanaging it so poorly that up to 90% of its workforce could be gone after just two weeks? Hmm, I don't know, let me ruminate on that brain teaser for a few days.

1 hour ago, Waiting4Someday said:

It will be interesting how this turns out, I feel like a lot of Elon Musk's success is based on him creating the image of real life Tony Stark - if he loses that shine... is Tesla a bit overvalued, is SpaceX really a great idea, etc... death spiral. 

Tesla and Space X are profitable companies.  The problem is that if there's a downturn in their business or significant problem with a product.  No one is going to believe that Elon can be the man to fix it. 

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

Tesla and Space X are profitable companies.  The problem is that if there's a downturn in their business or significant problem with a product.  No one is going to believe that Elon can be the man to fix it. 

Tesla is going to face a tsunami of higher quality EV competition and the brand is currently under fire for recalls, substandard self-driving software and Musk's behavior. Musk's scarcity advantage in this space is coming to an end so the brand is more important than ever. His current behavior is hurting the prestige of the brand, IMO. Space X has a unique scarcity advantage and a global network of communication satellites is a really good business model. Paul Allen wanted to do this before Musk and I don't know if it got going before his death. Space X is a the real deal, IMO and very "Dr. Evil" scary if held as an unregulated private global enterprise. Just see it's affect on the Ukraine Russia war as an example. Musk could pull the plug on Ukraine and they would be in the dark, information and communication wise given Russia's destruction of their infrastructure. (no political position here, just an observation)

26 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I would think something like that would take some time.

 

Out of curiosity, why the big "uproar” over him buying Twitter?  I’m guessing it’s been politicized?  Another Right Vs Left issue? 

It's killed the value of the Tesla shares I own.  Certainly Elon did not help the company by pandering to the right. I think it played a role in why advertiser paused spending.  It isn't necessarily the politics that did it but I think the incessant tweeting made him seem erratic.  They rightly were concerned about people leaving the platform and that ads could be successfully delivered to customers if he was letting go of workers.  If he was pandering to the left, I think it would have caused a similar problem. 

There is also the issue of the world's richest man running the world's preeminent media forum.  

 

So far, his brilliant idea of allowing people to self verify their accounts has cost companies money and cost Twitter advertisers. Eli Lilly lost $15 billion in market cap when a fake tweet said the company was offering insulin free of charge.

 

Yeah, and the issue of him being an ass with his employees 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Its not been unnoticed at all. Its been brought up every week, even during all those wins. What it has been is a non-issue. Something that we knew was there, but that we have been good enough to overcome. 

What cost us was the turnovers. If we play our game on offense, the run D wouldnt have even mattered. Just like it didnt matter in any of the other 8 games. 

Its good to see Howie trying to improve it because the ultimate goal is no weaknesses. But its not something that snuck up on us, not is it something that should suddenly be so concerning. Those hypothetical good teams in the playoffs you speak of dont exist. We already dominated the Vikings, and handled Dallas. We are better. And there is no better competition than them in the NFC. 

We are fine. Too much concern over run D. 

We know its weak. We know we are good enough to overcome it. We know they are trying to improve. 

We did beat the Vikings. They also refused to run the ball and played a defense that allows us to go bombs away. I'd imagine they could play us much tighter a second go around and, they did just beat a SB contender on the road.

Dallas was close with Cooper Rush.

San Fran has a very good defense and may have a dominant run game depending on what CM does.

Houston hung with us for three quarters by running the ball and having garbage at QB. They're one of the worst teams in football.

Yes we're still better than most of the NFC, but again, it's foolish to think that come playoff time teams won't be able to take advantage of that. Our great offense won't be so great if it's on the sidelines.

1 hour ago, WentzFan11 said:

Most of the issues with him are based on the decisions he’s making as CEO, not politics. If you want to call forcing employees to work 80 hours a week or resign political, then sure. 

 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Why is notable that a guy who paid $44B for one of the most popular social media platforms is mismanaging it so poorly that up to 90% of its workforce could be gone after just two weeks? Hmm, I don't know, let me ruminate on that brain teaser for a few days.

I’m not fully aware of the inner workings of Twitter so most of this is conjecture. 
 

One thing I am aware of is that employee lay-offs are very common when a company is sold/taken over etc.  Happens more often than not.  
 

This is the case (especially) when it comes to "contract employees” meaning they are essentially "independent contractors” not necessarily W2 employees.

 In most cases "contract employees” are basically that - they have a contract to work for a company but are not "directly employed” by the company.  They could have direct contracts themselves with the company or an agency/smaller company can have a contract with Twitter but realistically they work for that agency/smaller company and not for Twitter directly.  

It’s much easier (legally) to lay off contract employees than it would be to lay off/fire an employee (usually called W2 employee) that is directly employed by (in this case, Twitter)  
 

On a much smaller scale, think of you working for a temp agency and that agency "losing/terminating” the contract it has from the larger company.  You technically were employed by the temp agency; not the company they had a contract with. 
 

That said; I am not sure that’s the case with Twitter but that’s exactly what comes to mind when every article I’ve read specifically mentions "contract employees”.

 

 

 

Are you buttwipes still talking about Twitter FFS?   

11 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

It's killed the value of the Tesla shares I own.  Certainly Elon did not help the company by pandering to the right. I think it played a role in why advertiser paused spending.  It isn't necessarily the politics that did it but I think the incessant tweeting made him seem erratic.  They rightly were concerned about people leaving the platform and that ads could be successfully delivered to customers if he was letting go of workers.  If he was pandering to the left, I think it would have caused a similar problem. 

Twitter unbanned people and use of the N word and other slurs skyrocketed once he took over. That is what drove a lot of advertisers away. They don’t want their ad next to tweets with that content. 
 

Im sure if it all gets ironed out then those people will be back.

5 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Are you buttwipes still talking about Twitter FFS?   

A lot of Eagles' news comes from Twatter, so yeah, it's been mentioned. 

Just now, Next_Up said:

Tesla is going to face a tsunami of higher quality EV competition and the brand is currently under fire for recalls, substandard self-driving software and Musk's behavior. Musk's scarcity advantage in this space is coming to an end so the brand is more important than ever. His current behavior is hurting the prestige of the brand, IMO. Space X has a unique scarcity advantage and a global network of communication satellites is a really good business model. Paul Allen wanted to do this before Musk and I don't know if it got going before his death. Space X is a the real deal, IMO and very "Dr. Evil" scary if held as an unregulated private global enterprise. Just see it's affect on the Ukraine Russia war as an example. Musk could pull the plug on Ukraine and they would be in the dark, information and communication wise given Russia's destruction of their infrastructure. (no political position here, just an observation)

I think Tesla has a niche market.  Recalls and concerns with quality will have a big impact on the company.  They also have distribution and production issues that may impact them more than other car makers.  I am not sure that GM and Ford will really take much in total sales away from Tesla as much as expand the EV market.  Mercedes, VW, BMW and Toyota are more likely to compete for a share but I think there's room for growth in the market.  Tesla still has better products in terms of range and features.  The software issues, however, have to change to remain competitive.  I wonder if the long term strategy is to sell the Tesla brand to another manufacturer and branch off into other products.  They have been focused more on the battery technology arguably than the car itself. The battery advancements have a lot of applications beyond just cars. 

I am just waiting until Space X takes all the billionaires to Mars. 

 

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

 

I’m not fully aware of the inner workings of Twitter so most of this is based on conjecture.  
 

One thing I am aware of is that employee lay-offs are very common when a company is sold/taken over etc.  Happens more often than not.  
 

This is the case (especially) when it comes to "contract employees” meaning they are essentially "independent contractors” not necessarily W2 employees.

 In most cases "contract employees” are basically that - they have a contract to work for a company but are not "directly employed” by the company.  They could have direct contracts themselves with the company or an agency/smaller company can have a contract with Twitter but realistically they work for that agency/smaller company and not for Twitter directly.  

It’s much easier (legally) to lay off contract employees than it would be to lay off/fire an employee (usually called W2 employee) that is directly employed by (in this case, Twitter)  
 

On a much smaller scale, think of you working for a temp agency and that agency getting "laid off/fired” from the company it had a contract with.  You technically were employed by the temp agency; not the company they had a contract with. 
 

That said; I am not sure that’s the case with Twitter but that’s exactly what comes to mind when every article I’ve read specifically mentions "contract employees”.

 

 

 

 

Layoffs were expected, but he laid off about 50% of the workforce on November 4th. He took away WFH and some perks for actually coming into the office (free food from the cafeteria). Then gave everyone else the ultimatum of working 12+ hour days for "hardcore twitter 2.0" or resign and take 3 months severance. So, most called his bluff and took the 3 months paid vacation right on time for the holidays. People are estimating less than 15% of the total workforce will remain. You could argue twitter had some bloat with employees, but not almost 90%.

10 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Are you buttwipes still talking about Twitter FFS?   

I am a butt bidet not a wipe jerk. 

12 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

I’m not fully aware of the inner workings of Twitter so most of this is based on conjecture.  
 

One thing I am aware of is that employee lay-offs are very common when a company is sold/taken over etc.  Happens more often than not.  
 

This is the case (especially) when it comes to "contract employees” meaning they are essentially "independent contractors” not necessarily W2 employees.

 In most cases "contract employees” are basically that - they have a contract to work for a company but are not "directly employed” by the company.  They could have direct contracts themselves with the company or an agency/smaller company can have a contract with Twitter but realistically they work for that agency/smaller company and not for Twitter directly.  

It’s much easier (legally) to lay off contract employees than it would be to lay off/fire an employee (usually called W2 employee) that is directly employed by (in this case, Twitter)  
 

On a much smaller scale, think of you working for a temp agency and that agency getting "laid off/fired” from the company it had a contract with.  You technically were employed by the temp agency; not the company they had a contract with. 
 

That said; I am not sure that’s the case with Twitter but that’s exactly what comes to mind when every article I’ve read specifically mentions "contract employees”.

 

 

 

A 90% reduction in headcount after just two weeks? No. That most definitely does not happen more often than not.

45 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 

I think it's because of all of the classified documents Trump stole from Hunter's laptop.  

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Side note, I dont know whats going to make you realize that the Redskins are just "medicore" and a backup QB.

 

I acknowledged as much? 

Maybe put the bottle down.

remember football?  all you people posting this twitter and all the other crap, all take it balls deep

Just now, olsilverhair said:

remember football?  all you people posting this twitter and all the other crap, all take it balls deep

I can't take a football that deep.  

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

So a dude with no catching weapons, a dude who isnt mobile, a dude who got benched a couple weeks ago and is only starting cause he's drinking buddies with the temp coach is now going to eat us up. 

Like do we here ourselfs? 

 

ryan is a ton better than that high school boy who beat the birds last week, it could happen again

3 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

 

Layoffs were expected, but he laid off about 50% of the workforce on November 4th. He took away WFH and some perks for actually coming into the office (free food from the cafeteria). Then gave everyone else the ultimatum of working 12+ hour days for "hardcore twitter 2.0" or resign and take 3 months severance. So, most called his bluff and took the 3 months paid vacation right on time for the holidays. People are estimating less than 15% of the total workforce will remain. You could argue twitter had some bloat with employees, but not almost 90%.

 

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

A 90% reduction in headcount after just two weeks? No. That most definitely does not happen more often than not.

Seems like a lot.  Again; I have no idea what the inner workings of Twitter are nor do I know what Musk’s intentions are.   But at the end of the day, it’s his company and it’s his 40+ billion that’s at risk.  If what he does doesn’t work out, who loses the most?  

4 minutes ago, olsilverhair said:

remember football?  all you people posting this twitter and all the other crap, all take it balls deep

Thank you for keeping us on track!

4 minutes ago, olsilverhair said:

remember football?  all you people posting this twitter and all the other crap, all take it balls deep

World Cup starts Sunday with no alcohol for fans attending. Big news

14 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I am a butt bidet not a wipe jerk. 

You of all people would be

25 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Twitter unbanned people and use of the N word and other slurs skyrocketed once he took over. That is what drove a lot of advertisers away. They don’t want their ad next to tweets with that content. 
 

Im sure if it all gets ironed out then those people will be back.

Twitter allowed porn. I don’t think the ads cared

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Twitter allowed porn. I don’t think the ads cared