[abkolan]

> I mean, LinkedIn has what, 20,000 employees? If you had spherical developers in a vacuum, I doubt you'd need more than 40-50 to maintain their products, but there's more to running a tech company.

This is a ridiculous take. You would need way more than that just to maintain Kafka and run ops for it, that LinkedIn heavily relies on. You are trivializing the complexity of running a platform like LinkedIn.

[Nevermark]

Perhaps if reducing the complexity was considered an urgent necessity, over hiring more, there would be less complexity and new opportunities would be easier to consider and jump on.

Complexity compounds, so the tradeoff is, continually tame it, or continually hire with less and less impact per employee.

The latter seems to happen a lot when money flows.