This is unrealistic and seems to be biased by some kind of broad un-focused hostility. Yes, maybe they were overstaffed. But it's reasonable to suspect that leadership overcut, given the current climate and the number being 15,000. Your characterization of Twitter predictions relies on cherry-picking and ignores the actual impacts, and there's no evidence that the system goes down without "constant" intervention from "thousands". Your tone also implies that large, complex systems, even if designed well, don't normally require a lot of maintenance from many people.

Verizon is a traditional for-profit telco. Not some VC funded startup trying to hit a burn rate. Very unlikely they were overstaffed by 15k, sounds more like overzealous cost-cutting to hit a quarterly target.

Real-time multi-directional communications over massive geographic areas with tens of thousands of physical cell sites connected to ~140M devices vs... public text messages with media.

I realize your point, but its fair to say maintaining a nationwide physical wireless infrastructure may not be the same as hosting tweets, particularly when outages strike.

Slight sarcasm ahead—fair warning.

When Twitter did, its CEO may have slept at the office for weeks to make sure problems were resolved.

On the other hand, the Verizon CEO may be shopping for a new boat

> the doom and gloom after the Twitter layoffs predicting the site would implode and go permanently offline "within a month" which...never happened.

Many think Twitter has imploded, though it's online.

> You do realize it's possible for an organization to be overstaffed?

It's possible to be understaffed or appropriately staffed. Anything is possible!