Zuckerberg on Musk cutting 80% of Twitter: cutting middle management, not saving money
In the Lex Fridman podcast, Zuckerberg reviewed how Musk cut 80% of Twitter's staff after taking over, arguing that the core was not saving on salaries but increasing the density of technical talent, flattening management layers, and shortening the reporting distance between frontline engineers and the CEO. He mentioned that when he pushed his "year of efficiency" in March, he also had middle managers get back to writing code. The article also notes that Twitter's early layoffs came at the cost of advertisers leaving and compliance review grinding to a halt, making it hard for ordinary companies to copy.
Topics
View original postAt the all-new Roadster launch event, Musk said he invited the audience to prove the footage was neither AI nor special effects. If you happen to have a high-risk project that could easily go wrong and need to present it, I suggest you watch Musk's newly posted 7-minute-45-second Roadster unveiling video as a roadshow textbook. Strip away the special-effects shell of the flying sports car, and inside are three textbook-level lessons in expectation management and business detail. First, look at how he uses the fake to reinforce the real. He brought a live audience to the 4,000-acre SpaceX site in McGregor, Texas, and first used the line "not AI and not CGI" to stamp the whole event as real. Then, in a two-minute-plus dialogue-free demo, he intercut live-shot footage of the car climbing and firing its jets with pre-made footage of the curved ramp, the upside-down run, and HUD readouts. Once the audience sees the real car ignite and take off with their own eyes, their brains readily accept the extreme specs in the pre-made footage as live reality too. Anyone doing a product roadshow should understand this visual magic of using seven parts real action to vouch for three parts pre-made footage. Next, look at how he desensitizes expectations for a high-risk demo. Before the countdown to ignition, Musk fired off three lines on stage: success is not guaranteed, even if it blows up we're far enough away, but the thrill is 100 percent guaranteed. He downgraded an engineering gamble that could fail publicly into a fireworks show where you place your bet and take your chances: if it works, it's an industrial miracle; if it blows up, it's still showmanship. Those three lines wiped out the PR cost of a failed demo. And the most counterintuitive shift of focus in the whole show is hidden in how he defines the car. Musk announced on the spot that in the long run, the Roadster will be the only Tesla built for manual driving, yet tonight this very car's extreme debut—charging up the ramp and flying upside down—was done entirely on autonomous driving, on the grounds that handing it to the machine was the only way to ensure no one on site died. Carmakers used to build supercars to prove to the world the upper limit of mechanical control. Now Musk, together with SpaceX, has welded cold-gas thrusters onto a sports car and built a mechanical beast that even humans dare not drive up the ramp by hand. On the surface it pays tribute to the original Roadster from 20 years ago; in reality it uses an extreme exception that humans cannot handle to set off the main storyline: everyday mobility turning fully toward autonomous driving. Put plainly, these 7 minutes and 45 seconds are not a shopping video for sports-car buyers at all, but a public class in how to manipulate mass attention. When we do hardcore product launches or high-risk presentations, rather than putting on airs and swearing zero mistakes, we'd do better to learn Musk's three moves: first lay out the bottom line to desensitize expectations, then anchor trust with one visible real action, and finally use the most eye-catching extreme case to stand in for the main business that actually makes you money. But while enjoying the show, stay clear-headed. Not only can the upside-down shot with HUD downforce readouts in the video not be used as test evidence, but the official page also clearly states that the single-seat Rocket version with 10 thrusters is not legal for road use at all, and full production is not scheduled until 2028. The most brilliant business magic never relies on fake footage to deceive people; it lights a real rocket in front of everyone and makes you willingly pay for his main storyline.
View original
老马在全新 Roadster 发布会上说,请现场观众来是为了证明画面不是 AI 也不是特效, 如果你手头正有一个极容易翻车的高风险项目要汇报,建议把老马刚发的这段 7 分 45 秒 Roadster 揭幕视频当成路演教材看一遍, 扒开飞天跑车的特效外壳,里面藏着三个教科书级的预期管理与商业细节。 先看他是怎么借假修真的, 他在得州麦格雷戈 4000 英亩的 SpaceX 基地拉来现场观众,先用这句不是 AI 也不是 CGI 给全场打下真实钢印,紧接着在两分多钟的无对白演示里,把现场实拍的爬坡喷气,和提前做好的弧形坡道倒挂 HUD 读数画面混剪在一起, 观众亲眼看到了真车点火起飞,大脑就会顺手把预制片里的极限参数也当成现场实况照单全收,任何做产品路演的人,都该看懂这种用七分真动作替三分预制片背书的视觉魔术。 再看他怎么给高风险演示做预期脱敏, 倒数点火前,老马在台上连甩了三句话:成功没有保证,就算炸了我们也离得够远,但刺激程度百分之百保真, 把一次可能当众翻车的工程冒险,提前降维成一场买定离手的烟花秀,成了是工业奇迹,炸了也是节目效果,三句话直接把演示失败的公关代价清零。 而整场秀最反直觉的重点转移,藏在他对这台车的定性里, 老马当场宣布,长期来看 Roadster 会是特斯拉造的唯一一款手动驾驶汽车,但偏偏今晚这台车冲上坡道倒挂飞天的极限首秀,全靠自动驾驶跑完,理由是交给机器才能确保现场不出人命。 以前车企造超跑,是为了向全世界证明机械操控的上限, 现在老马联合 SpaceX 给跑车焊上冷气推进器,造出一台连人类都不敢亲手开上坡道的机械猛兽,表面是在致敬 20 年前的初代 Roadster,实际是在用一台人类驾驭不了的极端例外,反衬日常出行全面倒向自动驾驶的主线。 说白了,这 7 分 45 秒根本不是给跑车买家看的导购片,而是一堂怎么操控大众注意力的公开课, 平时我们做硬核产品发布或高风险汇报时,与其端着架子拍胸脯保证零失误,不如学学老马这三招:先把底线摊开给预期脱敏,再用一个肉眼可见的真动作锚定信任,最后拿一个最抓眼球的极端案例,去替你真正赚钱的主业站台。 不过看热闹的时候也得留个清醒, 不仅视频里带 HUD 下压力读数的倒挂镜头没法拿来当实测证据,官方页面也明确写着带 10 个推进器的单座 Rocket 版根本不准合法上路,整车量产更是排到了 2028 年。 最高明的商业魔术,从来不是靠假画面骗人,而是当着所有人的面用真火箭点火,让你心甘情愿替他的主线故事买单。
Body · AI translation
Why is it that after Musk cut 80% of Twitter's staff with one stroke, the big Silicon Valley companies didn't watch him become a laughingstock—instead, they collectively started going after their own middle managers?
Zuckerberg came clean in a Lex Fridman interview, saying that many founders had long wanted to flatten the organization and shorten the distance between themselves and their engineers—it was just that Musk took the first step that no one else dared to take on behalf of the whole industry.
On the Lex Fridman podcast, Zuckerberg reviewed the storm after Musk took over Twitter and slashed 80% of its staff, personally acknowledging that Musk set an example for all of Silicon Valley. He even said outright that many founders had long felt this was the way to change things—it was just that no one had dared to act first before.
In the conversation, he broke Musk's seemingly brutal layoffs down into three very concrete organizational principles: raise the company's density of technical talent, flatten the management hierarchy outright, and shorten the reporting distance between frontline engineers and the CEO as much as possible.
Normally, when big companies cut costs and boost efficiency, the default move is for each department to take a proportional share of the cuts and dutifully lay off a batch of frontline programmers and business staff. As a result, the work doesn't decrease, yet the reporting layers in the middle that pass messages along remain untouched.
But Zuckerberg pointed out the most counterintuitive part of Musk's cut: laying off 80% of the people was never about saving on wages,
but about uprooting the message-relayers standing between the boss and the engineers,
which is also why, when Zuckerberg sent his all-hands letter in March promoting the Year of Efficiency, the core move was to make middle managers get back to writing code—turning managers of managers into engineers of engineers.
It's like clearing a silted-up river channel: scooping water downstream is useless; you have to tear out the gates that block the flow layer by layer in the middle before the water can start running again.
Even though Musk took all the public criticism, once the whole world saw that Twitter's servers could still run with 80% fewer people, the entire tech industry's illusion about organizational size was shattered on the spot.
Put plainly, this is a very clear signal for anyone today who leads a team, runs a business, or writes code at a company:
The foundation for a person to secure a place in an organization in the future is not how many layers of people you have under you, but how close you are to the real code and real product delivery.
Still, when listening to two top bosses trade long-distance compliments, you have to stay clear-headed. From the standpoint of founders and Wall Street shareholders, cutting middle management and raising per-person efficiency is of course a sure-win deal,
but in the early days of Twitter's mass layoffs, the company did pay a heavy price in lost advertisers and halted compliance review. Ordinary companies don't have Musk's capacity to withstand risk, and blindly copying shock therapy can easily sever a business's main artery.
In the past, big companies competed over who could build an organization like an airtight pyramid; now they compete over who dares to be the first to tear out the load-bearing middle https://t.co/4oq6cSYeFd