I know this kind of thing brings up strong emotions for most people—it does for me too—but you can't fairly judge another person's intimate relationships* from the handful of details that appear in a news article, and responding with personal denunciation is against both HN's rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and its intended spirit.
We mostly don't know why other people do what they do, nor what they've gone through themselves, and we tend to be harshest and most uncharitable when we know the least.
Does that mean that the family impact of taking such a path in life should be off-topic in a thread like this? Not at all. But to be within HN's guidelines and (more importantly) its intended spirit, you should do it differently—not in a condemnatory way, but in a wondering way, and perhaps drawing connections to one's own experience, which always helps.
Why not ask his son, who has joined him on sections of his walk, or at least read the abundant press coverage about the two and why Bushby was unable to follow his infant son to Northern Ireland?
Within the overland-travel community, Bushby comes up often enough and people actually talk about his walk, getting visas, crossing borders, interacting with local people. It's a good demonstration of how toxic general social media like Reddit (or, now, HN) is for substantial discussion that people try to move the discussion instead to the personal merits of the person.
As a retired cycle tourist myself who hosted a few world-spanning cyclists and a friend of a well known late Italian Vespa globetrotter, I would say: this is actually the critical audience (often subconsciously) personally justifying why their own life is so boring: "my way is the right way: everyone else is irresponsible". Deep down they feel threatened by the notion that their life may be boring BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DAMN CHOICES. News at 9.
But yeah, they are all half-mad or worse (read: "interesting people"); military service isn't going to have zero impact either, people deal with it different ways.
I find it telling he doesn't have flags on his kit.
Many qualities of people who accomplish extraordinary things do not correlate with strong interpersonal relationships. The comment was a little overly judgmental so I totally understand your comments, but put politely, it isn't particularly unreasonable.
Absentee parenting is a novel concept; in ages prior it was the norm. That said, I'm on board with being there for the kids, all the evidence is positive. Unless you're English, in which case: chin up, keep calm and carry on! That's another contributing factor: the guy possibly went to boarding school.
He couldn't go to Belfast because he was active duty in the British military.
But, he left the army to do his around the world walk, which means that he could have left the army and gone to Belfast instead.
He and his adult son have a good relationship now seemingly, but that doesn't mean his son didn't need a dad growing up. Having said that, it seems like this dude had a whole slew of mental issues, so perhaps it was for the best that he wasn't around his son much while he was growing up.
In so many of these stories, once the parent and child have publicly reconciled as Bushby and his son have, the child is very annoyed by total strangers on social media continuing to harp on abandonment or injustice; it feels like an intrusion into their personal life that hbn or smt88 knows nothing about. So, you might want to ask whether your intervention here is actually sought.
This entire discussion is post hoc, unless you're assuming that everyone who is commenting here happened to also have criticized him publicly in the past. There's no statute of limitations for people voicing their opinion on something they just learned about from a while back.
"My weird beef" is hoping people will talk about Bushby's walk, which is legendary in overland travel circles and full of interesting details of local people, local customs, geography and geology, instead of trying to turn this into yet another social-media harangue of a person's personal flaws. What the man saw on his walk would probably be more interesting for a community of intellectual curiosity like HN (and look at dang's response above) than the man himself.
Again, there is more to talk about than the man himself or his walk as his personal "life's work" . The regions he moved through, things like the Darien Gap in the early millennium, are often of great interest to the HN crowd, and these facts are discussed in the coverage of his walk.
Thank you for being condescending, this helps the conversation.
Could you please point out in the comment I was responding to where you found this quote?
And maybe refer to
>Why not ask his son, who has joined him on sections of his walk, or at least read the abundant press coverage about the two and why Bushby was unable to follow his infant son to Northern Ireland?
which true to explain how great the relationship was once the kid grew up?
The stories where bad parents just swoop in late in childhood and have a great relationship with their kids is frustrating. As a parent you would like to think the monumental task of raising a newborn from birth through the first 5 years would create some kind of lasting connection between you and your kid.
It is a ton of sacrifice and they won't recognize it until they have kids themselves. The reality is they can resent you as a teen and become endeared with a step or absent parent if they are more "fun" in the moment.
Acceptable? No, but some people realize too late that they want an alternative mode of existence. As somebody who had abusive parents, I would rather they had pursued their desires.
"Hey dad, what's this trip I hear you talking about?"
"Well son, even though you're 8 years old, I've decided to spend the next 28 years walking around the world."
"Gee dad, that sure seems like a long walk. Are you sure about this?"
"Well of course I'll be taking breaks rather than doing the whole thing at once."
"Great, so you'll be able to visit me, your 8 year old son, right?"
"Nope! I've decided to add my own self-imposed rule that I can't visit the UK until I've completed my walk. Instead, whenever I don't feel like walking, I'm going to fly to Mexico and hang out there. Then when I do feel like walking again, I'll fly back to where I was and resume my walk."
"So you're leaving me, your 8 year old son, to go on a 28 year long, non-contiguous walk around the world where you'll rarely see me? And by the time I grow up we'll barely know each other? And you'll end up missing the birth of your granddaughter?"
"That's right, son! I hope you're excited for the first of 4 times we'll see each other, 6 years from now! Aren't you proud of your dad for being such a great explorer?"
This walk is fairly tame in risk of death. Not so much in time lost as a dad.
This is a very common archetype though: dad of young kids does risky outside adventure for self-aggrandizement > dies.
the upcoming doc Everest: The Other Side will be fascinating.
Hilaree Nelson & Jim Morrison had a pretty crazy expedition goal. Then she dies while training to do it together.
He continues on anyways.
A bit of nuance: IIRC he previously lost his ex and kids in a horrible non-mountaineering car crash.
But IIRC Hilaree had children she left behind.
The film looks beautiful though.
Which is part of the problem... The inspired by jimmy's cinematography -> alex's feats -> become a wannabe amateur free solo father who dies is well established by now lol
My dad is friends with one of the main rabbis in JH. has done probably 20+ "He died doing what he loved" speeches, as the wife and kids sob and are left with no income stream.
I think you'd be surprised how many people have a lot more money than you and me, and how they buy expensive things and never use them to their "full". Eg. people buy expensive cars and yet aren't racing drivers, and they also buy expensive computers and use them merely for browsing the web.
Windows benefits from a touchscreen more often on something like a diagram where you'll be panning around up/down/left/right, zooming, etc because the trackpad situation isn't very good.
I've never felt the need for a touchscreen when e.g. using Miro because I can scroll and all directions and zoom intuitively on the Mac's trackpad.
Eh. I don't think the Macbook's trackpad is that good. It's better sure, but it's still not as intuitive panning or rotating over the image directly on a touch screen. And it's still useless for drawing.
MacRumors is still claiming we're getting a new chassis
> Apple on Wednesday will announce 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models featuring touch-enabled OLED displays with thinner bezels, a Dynamic Island instead of a notch, M5 Pro and M5 Max chips, and a lighter and slightly thinner design
Interesting. Will be way out of my budget, but keen to see how the OLED display performs long term. Nearly everyone I've seen that has used an OLED on laptop say they absolutely love it. But I still hate the idea of touchscreen, especially with the changes to MacOS to cater for this
IMO changes to a touchscreen would've been perfect for professional artists, but only if it enabled using an Apple Pencil. Which is pretty unlikely if they don't also solve the ergonomics of doing that, e.g. with a 360" hinge.
The modern iMac is the dream desktop that I'm sure Jobs would have loved to live to see, but Apple's laptops have gotten so good there's practically no reason to buy a computer from them that you can't take on the go.
It only makes sense for niche use cases, like your grandpa who is happy to have a single spot in his home for the computer, or a reception desk at a business, etc.
I actually think a desktop makes sense if you want to run local LLMs. I have an M4 Max laptop left to me when I got laid off. It can run good-sized LLMs, but the system heats up, the fans blast off, and it rips through the battery in under an hour. I'd rather have a desktop set up as a private inference server that I could connect to remotely.
But the iMacs only have the sans-adjective M-series processors. And is it really gonna have optimal thermals in that thin frame pressed against a big, bright high-res screen?
If you need to push performance you'd probably go for a Mac Studio, no? Or at least a Mini.
Desktop maybe, but Imac that costs more for the same specs of the mini you can shove in the drawer in a desk? I mean with the airspace taken up by an imac you only remotely connect to you could probably have two side by side stacks of I don't know, maybe 20 mac minis each? HPC territory.
Bingo, desktops are still king for actual raw processing. Apple laptops are great, but they're still just computers, given proper cooling and power they can perform even better.
An imac doesn't strike me as a desktop with proper cooling. Maybe they do some funny business in the chassis, but its pretty clear that airflow has been put on the bench in favor of having a sexy thin backside.
This is basically 99% of the proposition of the iMac at this point. If you don't need the specific all-in-one, color, and other design aspects of the iMac or can afford a Studio display, there's no reason not to buy some other display + a Mac mini or a laptop + display
I agree with you, but Apple's monitor situation is letting everybody down. Not having a 32" monitor for professionals is frustrating. I am glad I bought my Pro Display XDR.
The new post Jony Ive design and limitation to 24 inches make it undesirable. I know a lot of folks with older 2007 - 2019 iMacs but none of them who upgraded from those have the new 2020+ one.
I think it's mainly that from 2006 to 2019, the iMac was the only mid-tier desktop that Apple sold. Today, you can get a Mac mini or MBP that's the same or faster than an iMac.
There was a quad core Mini back in 2011. The old iMac was a good all in one package for designers, especially because you'd spend half or more for an equivalent quality screen.
I did have a 2010 Mac mini server, don't remember how it compared to the non-server one other than having dual HDDs instead of the DVD drive. I put them in RAID-1.
I also believe the Twitter exodus exposed the software engineering headcount sham for what it is. Something like 80% of the company left or was let go, and despite all the smug laughing about how the platform would go under within weeks, it just kept on going.
> Something like 80% of the company left or was let go, and despite all the smug laughing about how the platform would go under within weeks, it just kept on going
I’ve heard this claim many times and is not backed by any more evidence than “it works on my machine”.
If the company really did continue to operate in the same manner, it wouldn’t have been worth 80% less in 2024 (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-...), nor would it need to be rolled up and financially engineered into being part of an AI company that then gets rolled into a rocket company.
It has been losing users, safety standards have dropped and overall the platform is worse off than before. There’s a reason why no other company has done something similar with their employee counts.
I think Twitter is worth less mainly because Musk removed some kinds of censorship and by doing that, scared advertisers. Not because the layoffs actually caused any significant technical issues. I don't think they did, since from a technical perspective X works just fine right now.
In my experience it is extremely buggy now. For months the “copy link” feature in tweets didn’t work. The video player is broken half the time, and videos get stuck when you try to rewind them.
Also, it is now full of bots and grifters, plus Musk’s own promoted tweets with whatever political thing he’s obsessed with at the moment showing up in everyone’s timelines.
He also removed the people selling the ads and the people working on the ad targeting platform, mind you. I think that's what differentiates from a normal "PE gutting/squeeze" and what people should be analyzing, but everyone (from "both sides" of the Musk equation) gets caught up on the uptime number for some reason.
The matter of the fact is that most governments and newspapers publish on twitter (now X) still. It also serves the purpose of amplifying Musk to a large audience.
If you wanted to transform a public forum into a right -wing echo chamber, then the transformation is a massive success and the platform continues to achieve all relevant objectives.
You’re ignoring the context of the comment here. The parent uses an example of Twitter doing better after laying off 81% of the staff to suggest that other companies could do the same.
While you’re right in that the platform has its uses, other companies cannot do the same. Which is why it’s important to talk about objective success metrics. Sure if you want to fire 80% staff at Microsoft and have a transformation where they only cater to half the user base then they can do it. But they will also not be taking in the same profits as before.
Good points. Viewing it from the lens of the original business model or mission, it's a disaster.
I don't think it's right, but I can see how a billionaire just completely overrides the company mission and business model after they buy enough shares or something.
Maybe there are other non-obvious use-cases for other companies, where you're effectively buying the user base to then pull the rug.
A lot of the original customers will just accept such a change. See Twitter or GitHub.
> If the company really did continue to operate in the same manner, it wouldn’t have been worth 80% less in 2024 (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-...), nor would it need to be rolled up and financially engineered into being part of an AI company that then gets rolled into a rocket company.
Musk paid an absurd premium for the company. Far more than it was worth. It was intended to force the board to sell. So an 80% estimated drop (it’s private so it’s a very rough estimate and I won’t go into the various reasons you should not accept it at face value), sounds scary but it’s by design.
Twitter as a company was doing quite poorly leading up to the acquisition. It lost more than $1.3B in the two preceding years. A big downgrade from its previous $1B+ annual reported profits.
As for the 81% headcount reduction, Musk confirmed that, but if you think he’s lying about that for some reason, CNBC investigated it. Journalists examined internal Twitter records and reported approximately 1,300 actively working employees, with another 1,400 still receiving pay but no longer working. CNBC also interviewed two recent employees who corroborated the scale of the reductions. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/20/twitter-is-down-to-fewer-tha...
Prior to acquisition, Twitter's SEC filings confirmed more than 7,500 full-time employees.
I don’t see why this claim is so unbelievable. Twitter was famous for its army of social media staff whose entire day comprised two meeting between matcha tea and meditation. https://youtube.com/watch?v=buF4hB5_rFs
Musk just fired everyone who wasn’t an engineer and it turns out the engineers keep the lights on.
I don’t see anything in what you wrote really support that Twitter did well after firing 80% of its staff.
As for this:
> Twitter as a company was doing quite poorly leading up to the acquisition
This is objectively false. 2020 revenue for Twitter was $3.71B while 2021 came in at $5.07B. The company was on a growth trajectory and path to profitability.
> I don’t see anything in what you wrote really support that Twitter did well after firing 80% of its staff.
That’s because I didn’t make any claims about X’s financial performance. I was explaining to you why you were wrong on some important facts.
> This is objectively false. 2020 revenue for Twitter was $3.71B while 2021 came in at $5.07B.
First, you’re conflating revenue and profit, which is kind of unforgivable in this context. Second, I explained that in those years they made large profits. In my comment. Which you clearly didn’t read.
If this is just where you like to emotionally vent may I instead recommend Reddit? I like the interesting discussions here.
> That’s because I didn’t make any claims about X’s financial performance. I was explaining to you why you were wrong on some important facts.
Again, you added nothing and are suggesting I was wrong on some facts? Can you point to my comment that you responded to provide the fact that I was wrong about?
> First, you’re conflating revenue and profit, which is kind of unforgivable in this context
Err I am not? Seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting what I’ve said.
> this is just where you like to emotionally vent may I instead recommend Reddit
Seems like you’re the one intentionally or unintentionally engaging in a Reddit like discourse. In sister comment you say Elon Musk was the only investor in Twitter which quick Google search will tell you is incorrect. I feel you need to hold yourself to the standard that you accuse me of not having.
No, Musk designed an offer that forced the board to sell to uphold its fiduciary duty to shareholders. (And then famously got cold feet about it, but it was so well-designed that he couldn’t shirk it.)
The valuation crashing back to reality after going private, and therefore being measured by its intrinsic worth rather than whatever the latest trader paid for a share of it, was an inevitable but meaningless consequence.
Meaningless to the investors, including employees with vested RSUs. They got bought out at $54.20, way above the soon-to-become market value.
It was meaningless to Musk for all of about a week, when he came off his ketamine binge and realized what a stupid offer he’d made. But it was a done deal by that point.
According to Reddit[0], it might not have been meaningless to employees with unvested RSUs. They lacked an acceleration clause, so instead of immediately becoming 100% vested at $54.20, the schedule remained intact with a cash payout instead of stock. If the cash payout was relative to current company value, then it was a massive hit.
I'm not talking about those investors and employees.
I'm talking about the investors and banks that ponied up over half the purchase funds, and the employees that didn't have life changing payouts who were laid off.
I suppose he has the money to pay back the investors and banks now though. Not sure what kinda return they were expecting vs what they got.
Elon Musk was the only investor. Which investors are you referring to? And yes, when you pay a premium for stock, you’re paying more than the intrinsic value. This was widely reported so I don’t understand why you would pretend that it’s a big secret.
The Financial Times report is behind a paywall so I'm not sure how that evaluation was reached. Also there are a bunch of bizarre financial shenanigans Musk has freely pulled with zero scrutiny. Hard to gauge the full impact of the layoffs when the person at the helm is profoundly amoral and has no scruples about lying.
`Investors valued the platform at $44bn in a so-called secondary deal earlier this month, in which they exchange existing stakes in the company, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.`
and
`X’s revenues have dropped since Musk’s takeover, but it posted about $1.2bn in adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation in 2024, according to two people familiar with the matter — roughly flat with the period before Musk’s takeover.`
they were doing far more than propping up twitter. they were also doing tons of engineering on the side like bootstrap, and shaping fundamental internet technologies.
Musk, in traditional private equity ways, killed anything that wasnt immediately making money. Then he made it pay to play and monetized the hell out of it. All of that BEFORE he opened the far-right floodgates.
Now its a shell of its former self and coasting on the momentum it once enjoyed.
I strongly disagree with this take; do you think all companies are 80% SREs? Did Twitter make money by serving pages to users?
The Twitter exodus does relate to this, kind of; it's an example of the "fall back on existing revenue streams" strategy (you could call it a private equity playbook, but it's more universal than that) exaggerated by the guy acquiring it not needing more revenue and clobbering the revenue part too.
Twitter pre-Musk had an _enormous_ amount of experiments going on. They were building streaming services, clones of every social network you can think of (Spaces etc.), an entire sports brand around MLB, and so on and so on.
They also had an army of sales people who sold ads and an army of engineers building and optimizing an ad platform, which is (or was?) their actual business.
The "platform going down" narrative from both sides was 100% irrelevant to what was actually going on. "We laid off PMs, salespeople, and engineers and the system didn't crash" is a complete non-sequitor that should be obvious to anyone who's involved in software engineering or maintenance. If anything, I'd expect laying off most of any company to make it much more stable; when you don't change things you introduce fewer bugs.
This is so true. Twitter built TikTok three years before TikTok itself launched. (Vine)
If you aren't growing and building, then obviously you don't need the same amount of people only to maintain what you have. It doesn't take that many people to fix bugs, renew SSL certificates and plug security holes.
Game studios knew this since forever. Once you finish building, if you aren't building something new, then you're laying off. It's not a new thing Twitter/Musk has just discovered. Odd that whenever this is discussed, it's framed as if Twitter-then is the same thing as Twitter-now, minus most of its employees and doing just fine.
twitter had an enormous trust&safety moderation org and a lot of the headcount reduction was simply automating trust&safety processes and removing humans as much as possible
It’s true they had a decent sized trust and safety org that was basically all fired, but I don’t think it was anywhere close to most of the layoffs. They laid off ~75% of their headcount, do you really think the company was 3/4 (or even 1/4) trust and safety moderators?
I’m thinking about it, but I’m pretty sure the trust and safety org was far less than 75% of their employees. The low level human moderator work was almost all outside contractors, not employees included in their headcount and layoff numbers.
Keep in mind that we don't know how many engineers from his other companies have worked or are working on Twitter since it (a) went private, then (b) merged with SpaceX. So the "I fired 80% of my staff and nothing happened" meme is a bit incomplete
This is because nobody can say how many people are needed to develop or maintain some body of software. So companies hire however many employees they can afford. When the number they can afford changes they hire more or fire some. The number of staff has pretty much nothing to do with the actual work. AI introduces another factor to the equation: it allows one person to perform N times as much softy-work as before. So even if you have no idea how many people you need (as always, see above) you do know that you can get by with 1/N.
It kept on going, but they have been far less stable from a technical OR leadership perspective. They had a user exodus. They had advertisers leave in droves. I suspect it was a net negative change.
Trying to do anything other than posting on the platform is a mess. Advertising dashboards etc were broken for so long that I gave up trying all together.
Also look at their recent account merging efforts and all the problems people have encountered and posted about on the platform itself.
You can see from the replies (highly political responses that are focused on the EM angle rather than particularly caring about the twitter angle) that really don't like this answer. Unfortunately for them it's true. After some initial stumbles after the firings (which journalists were practically cheering from the rooftops), today it seems to be much the same as it was before all that. And that makes reddit types really really mad.
I suspect this is what got Meta and other companies at least considering whether they would benefit from doing this at a much smaller scale, because there were some mass firings the next year at other companies, but this could have just been in the pipes anyway due to overhiring before.
I don't think this is true. Twitter is able to support roughly as many users as before on only 20% of the employees, but those users aren't Twitter's customers. Their customers were the advertisers who paid them money to advertise to those users. And the majority of Twitter's staff before the acquisition were working for those customers- either keeping conversations to be the sorts of things advertisers wanted to be associated with or categorizing and data-mining the messages that had been sent to figure out the ads to show users or building a advertising management platform for those customers to use or maintaining relationships with all of the advertisers.
After the acquisition, advertising revenue dramatically dropped (to a low of about 1/3 in 2025 though it has apparently recovered up to only down about 50%!), because all of those functions were gutted. This is why Twitter tried to switch to "buying a blue-check" and other premium features (e.g. access to Grok), because they had fired all of the people necessary to run a real advertising business and they needed revenue.
And I know that you don't need that many employees to support Twitter's customer facing business because Bluesky does basically the same thing (message storage/search backend+web app+two mobile apps) and they worked for over a year on just 20 million in total raises (and no advertising or any other revenue)- they did a Series B in 2025 that raised over 100 million, but they were operational for over a year on just 20 million in raise. So yeah, it doesn't take that many people to just present the messages of users to other users, but what Twitter did was to cut back on what they did for their customers and accept the big drop in revenue that came with it, and that's not really proof of anything.
>today it seems to be much the same as it was before all that
User numbers are down 20% since the acquisition, ad revenue is halved and the value of the company has collapsed. Where is the politics? The only political thing was the acquisition itself. It ceased to function as a growth and market based company and effectively became a propaganda outlet, EM is highly relevant in that this was the actual point.
As a product the entire platform has stagnated, which is what you'd expect if you let most people go and just use it as an arm for election influence.
That is news to me. This is pretty bleak for a normal person - it's profitable to take an established community, turn it into a propaganda echo chamber, scale down engineering until it kinda works and all that on a whims of a billionaire and it's even profitable.
Platform was super unreliable for a while after that - although that might be related to making all the software changes to turn it in to an even worse cesspit.
Edit: Enron Musk apologists will always crack me up.
This sounds like satire, but I don't think we're far off from major tech companies announcing layoffs alongside new products at keynotes. After all, their purpose is to drive consumer and investor hype.
Just because it's good doesn't mean it can't be better
The novelty of how thin my M5 iPad Pro is still hasn't worn off. Sometimes it's just nice to hold some tech in your hand that feels like it's from the future.
Since when have we established "thinner and lighter" equals "better"?
In the case of iPhone Air and Galaxy Edge phones, there were notable compromises to achieve a thinner body, for which many people don't consider an improvement.
Granted, I have not seen or used the new iPad mini, and I don't know if any such compromise has been made. But probably should leave it open until we conclude this is a plus.
I feel like I'm only gonna get pushed off this thing from software support being dropped.
reply