It's amazing to me how many people following the Twitter saga, some familiar with or actually working in technology, thought that Twitter would crash within days of the engineers being fired. And because it didn't, the job cuts are justified.
With that said, there are differences between internal systems and something like Twitter on the public internet. I assume that Twitter is a system under constant attack. What happens when the next log4shell level vulnerability comes out?
The car analogy is amusing, but how much does it really hold up? Have we ever seen another major social media company drop this much of its staff in one go? I certainly can’t think of an example. I think we’re in somewhat uncharted waters here.
A driverless car won’t last long, we know that for a fact. I think it remains to be seen how long a bloatless twitter can last. I’m personally optimistic.
It's also really hard to define 'last' though. Does 'last' mean just for up-time? Does it mean up-time without a major security incident while maintaining the same DAU? Does it mean business as usual on all fronts except number of employees? We know that Twitter already had some security issues with their God Mode admin panel.
I really wonder, for example, whether no angry ex-employees still have access to critical systems or data. This is usually pretty well regulated in large organizations like twitter, but since they've lost the majority of their staff, who knows when the people looking after that left?
I'm not convinced Twitter had a ton of bloat. (Most of the teams actually involved don't seem to think so). Just because Elon can't understand something, doesn't make that thing "bloat".
Twitter definitely had a few weird features that could be cut (the audio podcasting thing, for example). But calling most of Twitter microservices "bloat" is about as dumb as calling a cars Seatbelt and Airbag and Crumple Zones and that spare tire in the trunk "bloat" -- it's only "bloat" if you assume all people will always be perfect and no one will ever make a mistake anywhere, and nothing bad will ever happen.
Company soft killed the product, everybody left, they didn't hire anyone to replace. We went from 20 engs to 3. Worst codebase ever made by ex FANGs hotshots who thought they understood something about system architecture. Very "clever" and complicated. Data consistency issues happening everyday, likely due to misuse of messagging queues. Chargebacks being ignored and mailed in physical letters every month. A couple of millions going through the platform every year.
My task was to run a team of mostly juniors maintaining and adding features to that mess.
I had no clue what that codebase was doing. We just left things as they were, fixing fires as they came. Nothing too bad happened. Slowly built a leaner replacement for some components. We simplified things over time and we even rebuilt some of the knowledge of the old platform, which helped with the daily outages.
The issues started happening not as often. Eventually. I moved on from that company, removing again a big chunk of knowledge. Over time I've heard tales of other people coming in and rebuilding that knowledge, over and over.
The platform is still standing.
It's a tricky one, because on one hand it increase my trust that their system was built robustly, but at the same time the passage of time would increase the chance of unseen/unaddressed "wear an tear" (bot figurative and literal) that might be going unaddressed, or under-addressed. But we have no view into that.
We won't really know until they suffer a major problem whether or not they have enough staff yet to keep sufficient maintenance going that such an event doesn't cascade into something much worse and/or whether or not they will be able to recover from it in a reasonable amount of time.
Horrible systems can survive, but often they survive through sheer luck.
I think it's hard to just use time as a measure. If there are no security issues and they add no features, then things should run fine. Which, ironically points to how solid the team was that was fired.
Of course if Twitter not only limps along, but thrives in this new setup then I'll definitely change my opinion. Being in the US, this might end up the case while Twitter for the rest of the world falls apart.
Keep in mind, that I think Twitter was bloated and needed a big shakeup. Randomly dumping people and those who tried to correct me is not the heuristic I would have used.
With that said, Twitter still has 2 huge problems. No vision and saddled with an enormous amount of debt. Right now, Musk is taking the PE approach to cut and milk what's there. The problem is, there isn't much to milk.
This is an excellently apt analogy, in light of Twitter's new owner.
Unless the company that creates it is owned by Elon ;)
Because they work for companies where the product would fail within days of them being fired themselves.
The truth in retrospect is that it was my fault (and my upper leadership's) that I wasn't replaceable. I created a knowledge silo around myself since I wanted to move fast and figured I could prevent the team from being bogged down in complexity if I just handled it myself and while that worked in regards to delivering out-sized results for the available bandwidth, it also was a risk that materialized as described above. So while I do believe that everyone should be replaceable and it's their responsibility to be, it's not always the case and products can live and die by it.
I worked at a company where everything hinged solely on one guy working from another country. When he left, loss of institutional knowledge took about three days to show real effects as things also came down crashing.
I worked hard to make _myself_ replaceable for when I left, it was a pretty good exercise, but me having that degree of freedom was symptomatic of the problems of the company.
That said you can replace people and build back that institutional knowledge -- both loss and gain take significant amount of time.
For the type of jobs at hand here, One of the things I learned is that nobody is essential. Even that person you think is essential.
Of course it could go either way but the jury is currently out. It’s entirely possible that severe company-impairing technical breakdowns are already in progress and unrecoverable.
Or maybe not.
On the other hand. As an engineer, we tend to attach way too much self importance to our roles. Like if we're not there entering the "numbers" 4 6 15 16 24 32 every 108 minutes, the entire business is going to crumble. So... this is one I'm going to watch with a keen eye.
Never I have encountered an engineer that thought that.
> Never I have encountered an engineer that thought that.
there are people all up and down this page saying effectively just that. well i guess i'm assuming most of these people are engineers in the software sense of the word.
