A big loss for Twitter, Manu will definitely be fine.
Manu is exactly the kind of engineer Musk should want to retain. He's very product focused and a hard worker. Not surprised to hear that he was volunteering for the long hours and sleeping at the office. Of course he is very expressive but he's also extremely reasonable.
Looking forward to seeing where Manu ends up going next.
Not the point of this post, but it would be nice if we normalized the practice of, giving people a digital copy of a range of relevant files when their employment ends for any reason (performance reviews, all the contracts and NDAs etc that you signed when you started, information about benefits, options etc). People shouldn't need to try to frantically save this stuff.
In California you can ask current or previous employers for this info (I don't know how far back it goes, for example if you left 20 years ago I don't think this applies).
Yeah. While wholesale downloading when there is a retention policy in place does seem like a policy violation (… although, is it worth losing someone like this over? Corrective action would probably be more productive for everyone involved…) I have been in a layoff and the amount of emails regarding the terms of my layoff (including terms that I'm supposed to honor after departure) that only got sent to my corp inbox … it's ridiculous. If you want your employees to take your policies seriously, make sure your own house is in order first. Stuff as it relates to my employment at the company is, to me, sent to "me the person" not "me the employee" and crosses that threshold to "not corp" email. Next time CC my non-corp professional email.
Also, the "Confidential: do not forward. We just shared on our public blog today … please help us by astroturfing on LinkedIn" emails.
He's a rather famous "nob" who worked at Google for years making much beloved cartoons and then went to Twitter. So a well-known (and apparently quite pleasant and smart) person in the industry.
That Musk couldn't interpret this right, and acted in his usual rash and vindictive way says more about him than it does about Manu. Also consistent with the way he lashed back at Gary Kasparov, clearly unaware who he was speaking to ("what have you ever done" indeed).
Any person truly laying claim to the crown of king of nerds would be respectful to both of these people and it says a lot about Musk that he wasn't. Taking over a Silicon Valley company without recognizing its culture and then firing someone who helped build it -- because they made jokes -- is beyond crass, it shows complete obliviousness to what he just bought.
FWIW Google used to have his cartoons mounted on walls around campus. Including ones that were (gently) critical of leadership and culture. How come Larry&Sergey&Eric could handle his gentle critique, but Musk cannot?
Jobs was pettier than Musk and by most measures and opinions he was also very successful in leading his companies --and so is Musk. Successful leaders aren't usually nice. Some have been and some are, but that's more atypical. Often leaders in order to lead to best competitors at times have to be harsh.
Say what you want about Jobs but he would have respected and admired someone like Kasparov. (He also would not have been dumb enough to buy something like Twitter)
Anyways, this convo right here -- along with the thread one over where people are rushing over themselves to complain about someone going after Copilot with a lawsuit -- is peak what orangesite seems to be becoming. Deference to authority and ego, and lack of recognition of the nerd community and actual hacker culture and its history. Ew.
Not to get too meta, because frankly it's kind of a boring topic, but that deference to authority has always been a part of it on here. The authority we defer to might have changed, but it's a board that grew out of startup culture: looking up to the big winners of this game was part of it's raison d'être
Deference to authority is simply one judgment of credibility. Another kind is one of dismissal. When you hire a lawyer or a doctor rather than studying the matter yourself, you're making a judgment on credibility. When you decide not to go to a chiropractor because they don't have a medical degree, that's a judgment on credibility.
I don’t believe Jobs would be the kind of person to accuse a rescue worker of pedophilia just because he was insulted over social media. Elon double downed on the claim by elaborating just why he thought the rescue worker was a pedophile.
Being accused of pedophilia by a top tier celebrity is a very dangerous position to be in. Not even Larry Ellison does things like that.
You say that like reading and signal-boosting an article takes meaningful effort. You sit on the toilet, you look at stuff posted by people you follow, see something curious, then you hit retweet or whatever. Modern social media is literally the art form of making this engagement maximally low-effort.
Trawling through the hundreds of actions of thousands of individual employees in a search for subversive contrarian views is a qualitatively different thing with respect to the notion of someone “having the time”.
The loan is not under his name. He leveraged Twitter and Twitter has to pay back the loan. The interest payments are a billion a year and that's why he's scrambling to make Twitter make more money. It's not his own money in any which way
This is Musk worship at another level. Active rejection of facts to make up some story about how he's some great businessman. He bought into a bad deal with no research and now he's scrambling
I love how you very confidently threw something out with literally zero rhyme or reason and now when someone challenges you, you have the gall to ask for a source. This is the asynchronous amount of effort it takes to deal with the ignorant
Banks have financed the buyout through 13 billion dollars of debt financing. There's also billions raised by others with Musk financing about 27 billion in his own cash that he raised by selling Tesla stock[0]
Resorting to ad-hominems only lowers the credibility of the user writing them.
And the article linked does not list where it got the information from, nor is it a reputable outlet for tech/finance news in the U.S., so it's questionable whether you bothered to actually read the entire article.
Quo erat demonstrandum. Speaking to someone ignorant and choosing to remain so is always more trouble than it's worth. Find a source that you're satisfied with yourself. It's not my business and this is public information
Not providing a credible source, if it's allegedly so easy to find, only further lowers the credibility of the previous claim.
I've only been able to find rumours and so on for specific numbers, not anything a major outlet is willing vouch for.
If you genuinely don't understand that different sources can have different degrees of trustworthiness then it appears you need to do some self-reflection instead of accusing others of ignorance.
What narrative is there to control? It's not like Twitter was about to put a big post out saying we fired him. He put all of this out their on his own. He wouldn't even need to bring up being fired in interviews, just say he left
He will be effective in doing so because the email screenshot he included indicates exactly that: he was fired for non-performance related reasons. "Your recent behavior has violated multiple policies" is pretty unambiguous to me.
I think the operant phrase is “policy violations.” I’ve never heard that associated with anything but breaking a corporate rule: talking to the media unauthorized, leaking, harassment, etc.
If I had headcount for his particular role, I'd hire him in a second and let him know it's OK to continue making his cartoons (which are very on-point and useful to execs who want to learn more about their orgs than what their middle managers are telling them) but he should of course be aware that my abilities to protect him if an SVP gets annoyed are going to be limited.
Reactions like these baffle me. Is it jealousy, resentment of people who are privileged enough to be above the norms of corporate feudalism?
Manu Cornet worked for Google for a decade, making these comics and getting famous for both them and (by all accounts) being a very good engineer. One of the comics leaked and was read by Satya Nadella, who cited it as an inspiration to turn Microsoft's corporate culture around.
So there's at least some people even in Big Tech who can tolerate a bit of very gentle chiding.
Seriously, Cornet is very tame in his comedy. If he didn't actually work in Big Tech, most of his comics wouldn't be considered all that clever or funny - but they get that little boost from nervous laughter of his colleagues. It's transgressive by corporate standards, but barely.
Who wants to work in a hellhole where even that isn't tolerated?
Free speech loudmouths never fail to contradict themselves, it’s one of the few things that are always true. Anyone who thinks they have the secret for freedom in their minds (and nobody else has) is obviously too narrow-minded to have any interesting idea about the complex (and collective) subject that is “freedom”.
Complex ideas like freedom and free speech are often presented in simplified messaging like: "Protect our freedom" or "I'm a free speech absolutist". But underneath the slogans are many levels of complexity and personal/legal contradictions.
So, I think OP is saying, please don't shout simple slogans about complex issues.
Yeah but they're probably only say that with respect to slogans that speak to ideas they disagree with but are totally fine with simplified slogans for ideas they agree with.
Yeah, I guess if you resonate with overly simplified or impractical ideas, then that's probably a bigger problem with the listener rather than the speaker.
How about defending the right of private entities to not have to publish speech they find offensive? Free speech doesn't guarantee someone a platform. Free speech just means the government isn't stepping in to censor the speech. If someone wants to make an antisemetic speech I don't have to publish it, but they can still go rant on the sidewalk if they wish.
I've heard this a lot, but I wonder how often we mean it.
Realistically, the level of effort I'm going to put forward to defend some person on the internet's right to make a particular comment is limited approximately to "writing a comment myself."
Defending to the death? As in risking my life? Maybe if someone's violently asserting a right to regulate what everyone says, or even some particular group says, if I don't think they can defend themselves. But one person under non-violent threat? I'll surprise myself if I make it off the couch.
I took a philosophy class on "freedom" in college. The entire semester on the word and simply trying to define it. And I had a few takeaways. My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully, or even come close. Second, anyone who simplistically uses the word to forward their agenda is not qualified to use the word (Musk, "free speech" advocates, American nationalists). Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means.
>Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means.
"Computers are useless. They only give answers." - Pablo Picasso
I think you missed the point of philosophy. It's pretty much all about pondering questions you can't answer. Once you manage to answer them, you're not doing philosophy any more but have moved into the realm of science.
Thing is, seems like a lot of those questions are not answerable simply because they use ill defined terms. Can those terms be well defined? If not, what good is the question beyond confusing humans with a surface reading? If yes, then very likely the mystery of the question vanishes.
All definitions are ill-defined if you're willing to question the words in the definition.
Maybe the point of philosophy is to uncover the weaknesses in our understanding of the word, rather than gain confidence in understanding it. So, asking "am I free?" helps me uncover my assumptions about the world and find out exactly how many levels deep I'm willing to go before I trust that the words in the definition are true.
If you were to say "hey, we should all fight for foobardom, a new term I just made up" but didn't give a good definition for then, yes, you'd have a problem: talking about foobardom would be pointless since it's an ill-defined term and the discussion would serve no purpose.
However, this discussion about philosophy and freedom is the reverse: people are already fighting and in many cases dying for what they think is this thing called 'freedom', and yet it proves elusive to find a definition.
The real-world, societal impact is already there. So it's worth studying.
And if you study it and find that it's elusive and nearly impossible to pin down... well now that's interesting, and should make you think critically about anyone who uses the term as a low-nuance bludgeon in an argument.
(In the other article around Twitter here today - this thread - https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 , I think this point is made pretty clear early on by the spam example: perfectly legal, yet "bots" are a self-professed problem for pro-whatever-speech-is-legal,don't-get-involved-further Musk...)
> My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully
“Freedom” is always “freedom to X”. The real debate is about the X, not how to define the word “freedom” itself, which is comparatively trivial, and doesn’t have much bearing on the X part.
Linguists don't define what a word means, the people who use it do. Ethnographers record the definition that a word is used for, and dictionary editors compile those records.
Even then, dictionary definitions are circular, which is where philosophers like to come in and confuse themselves while patting each other on the back.
I don't see how this Manu fellow is a "free speech loudmouth" or where he contradicts himself. He certainly is quite protective and assertive about his rights to publish these tools, and his cartoons commenting on and sometimes satirizing his workplace... but I think that's uncharitable to call him a loudmouth who contradicts himself. He seemed to be quite accepting of the fact that his speech is not without consequences and unsurprised that it may have got him fired. Maybe I'm not reading between the lines or missing other context?
I will say though that I find authoritarians and their sycophants far worse, hypocritical and dangerous.
We'll see what the OP says. Musk might fit better though, he may be already walking back his free speech position about Twitter, although the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will have to wait a while longer for that.
What does TFA have to do with "free speech loudmouths"? I may be missing backstory on the author, even so the comment seems out of place to the article I read.
I assume they are speaking about Elon Musk, who used 'Free Speech' as a reason for his wanting to reform Twitter. Specifically that they 'censor' people too much or 'censor' the wrong people. The person remarking about 'free speech' loudmouths is pointing out the irony that people like Elon who go on crusades of free speech advocacy do not practice it when it comes to things they don't like, don't agree with, or which have the potential to harm them in some way. This is because the article mentions that the writer made a joke at Elon's expense personally (handed him a card with a cartoon showing him breaking a twitter figurine in a shop) and then got possibly fired because of it.
I believe what they’re saying is that Elon Musk is a free speech loudmouth, and he fired the author for being a “jester” and/or saying things Elon didn’t like. (Not endorsing this view since I doubt Elon was directly involved in the firing, but that is my read on OP’s comment).
Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, I don't know if this is an unusual opinion or it's just the whole "billionaires and CEOs = bad" mob mentality has clouded opinions or he has a lot of fans here or what it is.
His cartoons and the way he distributes them is really quite distasteful to me.
Many of them criticize the organization he works for which okay is arguably not bad if it is measured and constructive, but I also think it can be destructive for morale and pointless. Everyone bitches and gossips and dramatizes about work, it's part of being in the trenches together, but you don't generally publish that on company-wide or public forums. Which is bad enough.
But actually much worse is his singling out individuals for criticism. Repeatedly. This meets textbook definitions for workplace bullying, and I don't think that's okay. Setting aside the other subjects of his cartoons, I don't think it is okay even to target the CEO this way. He may affect the entire company, but imagine doing a weekly cartoon criticizing your line manager and sharing in among her direct reports. Horrible, and certainly bullying. Parag is a human too, and should not have to be subject to that in his workplace. So is Musk, whatever you think of him, and the other executives in the cartoons for that matter.
Just because you're playing the whacky eccentric artist with hip cartoons that criticize those terrible corporations and hated billionaihs and CEOs and everyone on social media gives you lots of likes and shares... does not absolve you from the effect of your speech on others. And the calculus actually changes radically when you're not just some random comedian commentating on a public figure, but actually a colleague commenting from a position of knowing a lot of private details about these people.
I'm actually amazed this person lasted as long as he did. I feel sorry for colleagues of people like this who are affected by them, because often people are scared to speak out, and often the companies themselves seem to be scared of the backlash from disciplining or terminating them because of their cult followings.
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.
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.
Yep. I've never been fired or layed off before (thank goodness) but I found it unusual that they fired him in the middle of a meeting and the "screen went blank." That seems a little dramatic.
This is quite common in tech. There have been a number of situations where a person has been fired, but retained their access credentials, and did post-firing damage to production systems. It's not beyond the realm of belief that a corp would install an agent that would allow immediate remote power off for a terminated employee.
It would be extraordinarily negligent if the corporation didn’t have something like this implemented.
The information held by Twitter could place the physical safety of thousands of people at risk. It could place millions of people into other concerning situations, such as ostracism, bullying, and legal quagmires. Whether a fired employee loses access to internal systems at 2PM or 5PM is utterly irrelevant by comparison.
I know this person is talented and well-known (though I'm not familiar with their work outside of the org charts comic), but the whole "tee hee I'm such a troublemaker!!!" focus makes me understand why some people are reacting the way they are here.
To me, it would come off as insincere, passive-aggressive, and demeaning if someone talked to me like this, especially at work. And before I see a "you must be fun at parties" comment, there is a very distinct difference between friendliness and patronizing.
However:
>Survivor of late stage cancer [1]
I have no idea what this sort of thing does to the psyche, outlook, and communication style of a human being, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
I don't think I've ever come across a situation where talking about your firing in the public square was a good idea. I just don't see any tangible benefit it can bring.
I guess it's cathartic for the one fired, so there's that.
> I don't think I've ever come across a situation where talking about your firing in the public square was a good idea. I just don't see any tangible benefit it can bring.
A big quirk of firing situations is that the company can’t (or won’t) tell their side of the story. As a result, fired employees often feel like they can take control of the narrative by posting their version of events without worry about the company telling their side of the story.
In this case, the author casually mentioned that they believed they were among the top 5-10% of stack ranked engineers at Twitter as a way to get ahead of any assumptions that they were laid off for performance reasons.
I’ve seen other cases where fired people try to take advantage of this asymmetry to tell outright lies. A friend had a remote employee who gradually became less and less responsive until they couldn’t be reached for entire weeks at a time. They fired the employee, who immediately took to social media to fabricate a story about being unjustly fired for some other trivial situation at work that had no bearing on the firing. Of course, the failure to communicate or get any work done wasn’t mentioned at all, leaving readers to believe that the only contributing factor was the trivial, unrelated work situation stated in her posts. And it worked phenomenally well! She had a number of invitations to join other companies from people who thought they were helping right an injustice that had occurred to this person. (Note: I’m telling this story as a response to the parent comment, not implying it’s what’s happening in the linked blog post). So there can be some weird upside to taking control of the narrative if (and only if) one has a social media audience to share the narrative with.
When the goal is to get rid of someone or some people, fashion doesn't matter. Anything that can be used to construct a case will be considered. The goal is to prevent being sued or losing the suit, not to look good. "No, your honor, here is our methodology for evaluating performance. As you can see, it is not violating any laws. These employees fell on the lower end of the scale."
Also, in a situation where the owner is hostile to the employees, and the employees are hostile to the owner, how are you going to perform more accurate assessments? Code output may be the least bad heuristic they can use.
And of course, let's not forget this whole thing is meant to be a spectacle.
Thank-you for the reply. I interpreted the original FAQ answer to mean that stack ranking by lines-of-code has been used by Twitter in the recent past, prior to Musk. But I can now see that this is a new criteria used to justify layoffs.
> For example: statements from their stock broker (company goes private –> no more stock, which can be a big part of compensation), things from WorkDay (outsourcedd HR management), etc.
Nonsense. This is standard stuff that can be accessed by reaching out to HR of your former employer
As someone who has been laid off before, it’s not always as clear as you’d think when there’s a 50% chance the people you need to ask were laid off too.
I hadn't considered that Google are a competitor to Twitter at this point (at least, not since Google+ went away). And I guess they are happy to host some of their infrastructure on GCP as well...
Oh boy, this is so naive. Big corporations always prioritize minimizing risk over anything else. Because if you screw up and the risk doesn't pay off, your internal competitors will eat you alive.
So the dude publishes a tool for downloading internal communications (and making the intended use of the tool very explicit). It reaches some legal person in the company who gets to decide what to do about it.
So option A, do nothing. If in a month from now somebody uses it to leak a confidential email, others will remember your inaction, you lose your job. Option B, terminate the dude, block the tool. You get a pat on the back for doing your job, dude leaves.
It's really a no-brainer. If a company has someone who is literally paid to minimize liabilities, painting a big red "liability" sign on your back in front of them is not a good idea. Might as well pull out a gun in front of a cop, and then complain about police brutality (if you survive).
It is also a weird tantrum from the loyalty perspective. The corporate game is all about pretending to trust each other, while looking for multiple backstabbing opportunities at the same time. If you publish a tool saying "hey, if the corporate screws you over, here's how you fight back", you publicly show that you don't trust the company anymore. So unless the company immediately shows that they don't trust you, it's almost like they let you win the round, confirming that they shouldn't be trusted.
Manu is well aware of all of this. Quoting his last paragraph:
> I am doing fine. I am very lucky: I have citizenship of another country with good health insurance, I have a green card, I am fine financially (that may have allowed me to speak up more than others). I don’t hold any grudges against people who were just doing their job when confronted with a naive and mildly idealistic troublemaker like me, and I loved my time at Twitter, especially my coworkers.
Given that they’re explicitly setting up a situation to fire someone “for cause”, and it’s explicitly said he’s not expecting a severance package, it sounds like he didn’t get it “along with a severance package”.
> Oh boy, this is so naive. Big corporations always prioritize minimizing risk over anything else. Because if you screw up and the risk doesn't pay off, your internal competitors will eat you alive.
Sounds like he could easily afford the consequences, and is enjoying the opportunity it gave him to cast light on what is happening at Twitter. More power to him.
As others said, it's not naive. This is a person that has different values than you have. He doesn't care about keeping his job, if it's not on his terms. And that worked for a long time.
FWIW I read Manu's cartoons at Google -- to be honest I found them to be hit or miss, though I think they got better over time. As one other person here said, I do feel like a few of them unfairly called out a single person.
But this blog post makes me more of a fan! It's great when people have an agenda other than keeping their jobs, and when they recognize their right to be fired too :)
At least once in your life you will be given a meaningful option of between "stand up to power" and "submit to power".
Choosing the former you will always lose, that's the entire point of power.
But this is the exact point of choosing to stand up to power. It's knowing that you'll lose and asserting that perhaps there is another power that stands above the person standing over you.
I've been in this position, stood up and lost. But I can assure you that there is something you do take away from this that stays with you far longer than anything you might gain by submitting.
Not to say it was at all appropriate but many people will start off with that assumption about US/UK expats in Thailand, they just no better than to give voice to the initial assumption.
Well, for thousands of years we lived in small homogenous communities with only a handful of names. We also had very rigid gender norms. As times change we now live in more open communities with thousands of different names and looser gender norms. I oftentimes cannot easily guess the pronoun from a name.
We lived a long time without having to use honorifics yet we do now and are even publicly shamed for not doing so. Humanity and the language we use is a constantly evolving thing.
Are we? My impression was English language honorifics were going out of fashion. People are more likely to say Tom or Tom Smith than Mr. Smith these days
Is your suggestion that they modify their standard email signature when sending a requested message to someone they have already terminated in another way?
They are doing the dirty job to maximise shareholders’ profits at the expense of workers, all while abiding religiously to the current political correctness policy.
I just think that this in your face virtue is modern pharisaism.
It may shock you to learn that some of us actually, legitimately do care about being inclusive of others in a multitude of ways. It costs nothing to be kind and sharing/respecting another person's pronouns takes no more effort than any other way you might refer to someone. That a few people get tilted over something that does exactly zero harm to them is inconsequential because, like I said, there's no harm.
And you can just use their name and skip over them in an email signature, anyway.
Being “politically correct” while sending an email doesn’t seem hypocritical to me.
Can you expand more on why this is problematic to you?
This doesn’t seem to be a case of maximizing shareholder profits because it doesn’t seem like it was part of the layoff plan, but a directed termination because of behavior (as noted in the important part of the email).
> Can you expand more on why this is problematic to you?
Because at my company I never see anyone but the HRs stating their pronouns systematically. Yet they are the one to pressure you to implement alienating policies.
What alienating policies do you see them implementing?
I think it’s possible to be respectful and treat the recipient with respect while also doing something that they don’t like. HR often has to terminate people based on someone else’s decision. Does that mean they shouldn’t do it respectfully?
I'm assuming you're in HR? I was an SWE, and definitely noticed a real level of disingenuousness from the more HR types out there.
The same people constantly tooting their own horn about how respectful and human-centred they were would go out of their way to rip the soul and humanity out of everything they touched.
This is probably why GP is in opposition to the pronoun thing. It's got nothing to do with the merit of the idea itself, but the people implementing it - similar to how people are against the Metaverse simply because Facebook own it.
No, I am also an SWE as well. I am a manager though, so I understand the “corporate” side of things and what it takes to fire and lay people off. It definitely sucks being on that side too.
> The same people constantly tooting their own horn about how respectful and human-centred they were would go out of their way to rip the soul and humanity out of everything they touched.
Jeez, it sounds like you worked for a terrible place. And I would be unsurprised if it was just HR because those attitudes usually get pervasive. I’m sorry you had that experience.
Manu is exactly the kind of engineer Musk should want to retain. He's very product focused and a hard worker. Not surprised to hear that he was volunteering for the long hours and sleeping at the office. Of course he is very expressive but he's also extremely reasonable.
Looking forward to seeing where Manu ends up going next.