The missing context whenever this comes up is the fact that it was a surprise one off.
If developers have no idea they're going to be graded by lines of code at some random future date that's a much different situation than saying you're going to give bonuses away every month based on how many lines of code were written.
Everyone knows the second is bad, it'll be gamed massively. The first one could be useful though.
And yes doing it as a one off is still problematic and you can think of all kinds of exceptions, but if you think the organization is full of dead weight in general and overhired massively, a crude stack ranking by lines of code is a pretty good metric for figuring out which (e.g.) 50% is the bottom.
I mean, naughty old Mr Car didn't _invent_ this nonsense; IBM was fairly notorious for it in the 80s, say. He's probably the most prominent recent example.
> The first one could be useful though.
How?
> a crude stack ranking by lines of code is a pretty good metric for figuring out which (e.g.) 50% is the bottom.
No. It's really not. For a start, you probably lose basically everyone very senior by that mechanism. But also you lose the troubleshooters.
https://www.similarweb.com/blog/insights/social-media-news/x...
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/x-formerly-twitter-con...
https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/07/threads-is-nearing-xs-dail...
You're doubting this now, but deep down you know I'll be right. Elon Musk wants to win the race not because he believes in AI, but because he wants to be in control of the perpetual present.
I'd guess Elon and Linus's character sheets are more closely aligned on the same dimensions of intelligence than Linus would like to admit.
... Wait, does the author think that they are _actually_ the same person? If not, why the scare quotes?
On average, more productive developers write more lines of code. Of course, writing more lines of code doesn't mean you are actually more productive, but the trend is there.
Elon Musk wanted to lay off 3/4 of a workforce of thousands because he thought 1/4 was enough, it is going to be disruptive no matter what and no matter how you chose, it is hard to predict the outcome. So, the general idea is to pick people randomly. But you want to bias that randomness towards keeping the best and laying off the rest, and so he picked up the number of lines of code as a criteria. It is semi-random and likely to be biased towards better productivity. It is thinking in terms of statistics, not individual people.
He is likely to be the kind of person who would have no problem banning black people from communities if it wasn't illegal. Indeed, there is more crime where there are more black people, so to lower crime, eliminate black people. And it will probably work if you ignore the fact that they are people and not just points on a chart.
This would be particularly on Torvalds' mind, I assume; people who fix bugs in the Linux kernel (generally not a lot of lines of code) are generally more valuable to the project than people who contribute device drivers for obscure hardware (many lines, much productive, wow!)
It is a characteristic of those who claim to be intelligent.
Elon Musk is the best engineering manager this century. And a dickhead.
Edit: Just re-read the story. Going by the quote there, the interviewer lied about what Musk did and the story lies about what Torvalds actually said about him.
I have read that Musk was a complete cunt to the people working for him, long before he took over Twitter.
Beyond the joke truck thing, his car company hasn't released a new car in almost seven years. Twitter doesn't appear to have done much beyond release a few previously gated features (longer tweets, tweet editing, and the birdwatch/community notes thing were all things they were previously testing) since acquisition.
Like, I dunno, I'm not seeing it.
Grok, is that you?