From what I have read their vested RSUs were purchased for $54.20, but I did not see anything about accelerated vesting for unvested RSUs. I have no idea how generous Twitter was with RSUs.
This loyalty pledge just sounds like an awkward way of offering the entire company an early retirement package. Given morale at Twitter it makes sense to make that offer – people that were kept, but are unhappy have the same offer as people that were not. However, the loyalty part of it is stupid, unnecessary, and insulting.
Anyone with an H1B will likely stay on as it is harder for them to switch jobs, and fortunately for Twitter a bunch of big tech companies are announcing layoffs. If not for that, then I think he would say almost all of his non-visa employees walk. I certainly would.
Any word on options? Not my area of expertise, but where I’ve worked RSUs were granted shares that need to vest, while options were options to buy that need to vest. At both buy-outs I went through options either vested as part of the sale or converted into stock/options in the purchasing entity.
I’m not sure TBH. I didn’t see any reference to options in the article I found. My sense is that many companies have transitioned from options to RSUs for regular employees.
I think investors prefer RSUs because they are allocated from available shares when they are granted as opposed to options which are allocated when they are exercised. It’s harder to value the stock if there are a bunch of unallocated shares that may (or may not) be created. I may be over-simplifying, but that was the argument Microsoft made when they switched.
For the record, I’ve been a software engineer for almost 15 years at 3 companies large and small and I’ve never been pressured to work excessive overtime. Or any overtime, really, except a few hours one week once when they paid me time and a half even though they didn’t really have to.
Things may be different in Silicon Valley, but here in the East I haven’t seen it.
For the record, this is my experience as well. There are times when overtime is useful, but always with limited scope, and a specific goal in mind. If every day is “crunch time” then crunch time doesn’t mean anything.
(The only exception to this was a smaller company run by sales guys who had no lever to pull other than “demand more hours of butts in seats”. That didn’t last long.)
Substitute “political landscape” for “social media company” and that’s a great description of Trump, an observation that is no less true for being unoriginal on my part. (Although Trump still has some toadies loyal to him, I guess.)
The schadenfreude-est of my schadenfreude-infused daydreams is to imagine Trump and Musk stuck in a broken elevator together for 24 hours with half a bottle of water and one cookie. Man, I’d pay big bucks to watch the video of THAT interaction.
I’m not particularly familiar with the mechanics of RSUs in public companies that are taken private. If there’s no anticipation of the company possibly being taken private, those with unvested RSUs when the company is taken private might simply be out of luck in terms of trying to get paid for those awards, but there might also be something in the purchase agreement to take the company private that requires that all unvested RSUs immediately vest and are paid out like any other share of stock. If there is an anticipation of being taken private, then there might be something in the RSU documentation that states what happens in those situations.
I don’t know if the full purchase agreement for Twitter was publicly revealed or not, and I’m not particularly interested in finding out either.
I’m not a big Twitter user, and I have a question.
Maybe once or twice a day I open Twitter to check out what’s trending, that’s pretty much my only use of the app, since I’m perma-banned from posting. From there I might pick up a link to breaking news stories or other news stories of interest.
So I open the app this morning and I see #sex trending. I click the link on the trend line, expecting to maybe see a story about some Republican politician saying something clueless. Instead, my feed filled up with hardcore porn clips, with no NSFW warning or blurring or anything. One of the posts appeared to be a solicitation for child pornography, it was a pic of a scantily clad child with the notation that everyone that liked it would be sent nudes. The child was a girl that appeared to be about 12 or 13, although it may have been someone a little older dressed as a child.
So, has Twitter always been like this and I missed it, or did Musk break another content moderation feature?
If that ever happens again, if there are major advertisers on the same search, take a (legal) screenshot and show it to the advertiser or news outlets. It’d be a compelling pic, IMO.
I think a bit of both. Twitter has a lot of porn (mostly users posting themselves nude or doing sexy things, but people do repost commercial clips), but there’s a preference in your profile labeled “Display media that may contain sensitive content” which is unchecked by default. If unchecked you shouldn’t see porn, but stuff sneaks through sometimes. It sounds like whoever was classifying stuff as porn was shown the door.
Yeah, I worked for an organisation that, when they learned about the idea of staff performance reviews, set an array of summary scores (something along the lines of poor/adequate/good/exceeds expectations) and issued a statement saying they expected everyone to exceed expectations.
The organisation is no more.
If they do it as an ongoing strategy, it just means they are not properly resourcing their work. If you have to thrash people constantly to get the job done, the job will be done to a generally worse standard than if you apply the resources of a few more people who are not being squeezed dry of every drop of their life. Sure it costs more to do that, but delivering a substandard result also costs more in a different way.