This reply seems to be assuming (like Musk seems to have done when he came in with the kitchen sink) that the only jobs of relevance there are engineers and product folks building new features yet the loss of their important revenue streams that are causing an existential crisis for the company seem to be primarily about losing people with "softer" jobs like compliance and advertiser relations.
I'm sure there was some fat that could have been cut away from Twitter pre-Musk but its pretty clear the attempt to do it was made with a chainsaw and not a scalpel.
When turning around a company, it's not uncommon strategy to move fast even if it creates a little chaos. There's been business books written about it. Some call it chaos theory. The new ceo comes in makes some important early decisions, stirs the pot a little. Meanwhile, the things needing to get done get done. When dealing with a large or semi-large organization that has a strong built-in stasis, not sure there is a better way.
And, to be sure, Musk has gotten alot done in just a short time. He cut expenses, did a re-org of the company, and even did some product improvements, all while overseeing a massive document dump via the Twitter files in the interest of transparency. We can debate relative significance of all these things, but these are not trivial things.
> the loss of their important revenue streams that are causing an existential crisis for the company seem to be primarily about losing people with "softer" jobs like compliance and advertiser relations.
Its mostly related to gaining a new CEO, and the resulting instability imposed by that CEO, not the presence or absence of particular subordinate staff. (Heck, a lot of it happened based on the discussions and purchase offer created uncertaintu, when all the staff were still there.)
I'm sure there was some fat that could have been cut away from Twitter pre-Musk but its pretty clear the attempt to do it was made with a chainsaw and not a scalpel.