Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrew_ | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a lot of people who have been very comfortable for a very long time in a sheltered bubble are about to become very uncomfortable.

View on HN

Wow, all these ppl on HN making excuses for shtty workplaces. It's like they think the default toxic corporate environment must* be some kind of natural law, and anyone who works at a company that treats its employees with respect is some sheltered little baby who isn't "living in the real world".

Often, these are the same people that get pissed when a workplace penalizes someone for some racist or sexist behavior. So, don't make comics that make fun of company or its culture, you deserve to get punished you baby, but do celebrate a Mad Men-style environment ala Activision, because people who complain about say, sexist behavior, are just fragile woke babies.

Why should we celebrate asshole bosses? Steve Jobs was an asshole? Ok. But Tim Cook isn't. Sundar Pichai isn't. There's a lot of examples of successful companies with non-asshole CEOs and culture.

We shouldn't tolerate this idea that success is somehow correlated with being an asshole CEO who treats employees with total disrespect and that employees need to be kept in a state of terror that they could lose their job at any second due to a capricious CEO on an off day.

Maybe it'll take Musk losing his $44b investment before fans stop seeing him as some kind of infallible genius.

It's swapping one bubble for another. From the recent tweets it looks like Musk has a clear vision he wants implemented and isn't really looking to add a lot of diverse opinions to his thought process. He has more FU money than anyone else alive (even if Twitter goes to 0), so I'm pretty sure he'll turn it into whatever new bubble he wants.

So hypothetically speaking if Twitter goes to 0 or close to it, no monetary penalty will be slapped to Musk as it is private?

Damn!

You mean other than losing the $44 billion? What additional penalty would there be if Twitter were public?

Ostensibly a CEO owes a fiduciary duty to shareholders to protect their investment

But Musk took Twitter private, there’s no shareholders to please.

Private doesn't mean no shareholders.

There were $13 billion in loans, and private investments from other folks like Larry Ellison and Suadi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal as well as some private equity firms.

So yes, there are shareholders, and there are creditors, it's just that in the private equity world, "caveat emptor" applies, they are expected to be sophisticated and wealthy enough to not need the protections given to investors in publicly traded companies.

From his recent tweets he has said exactly the opposite; that he will build a "council" of diversified opinions and cultures, or something of the sort.

Whatever that means or if it's ever actually happening though remains to be seen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com