Maybe, but I didn't realize it, and I'll bet others don't either. Significant because of the accumulation of bad days, and because of the company's apparent hubris and possible over-valuation.
Maybe the news was already baked in? Seems like a common underfunded long term liability issue that could be forseen in their financial statements. (Any company with long dated fixed liabilities and unrealistic investment return assumptions can fall into this)
Kind of. Usually these trope-filled stories make a mountain out of some small setback, but this story genuinely feels like the company had some major setbacks.
I had considered that, but that seemed the less likely scenario: that they'd intentionally let their business get damaged, rather than having issues that most large corporations face.
I mean, they clearly don't have a handle on a wide variety of bad actors in their ecosystem, but keep putting out awkward attempts at solutions. This suggests they're trying to fix perceived problems, but are avoiding the core of the problem because they either don't see it or don't have the political will to fix it.
I dont notice the same thing but we could be looking at different articles/comments on here.
anyways, i think the real issue here is just the emptiness of it. Anyone can brag they knew (or pretend they knew) that a business would fail after it already did.
and hes not providing insight. Just, it was "Terrible" and they "did it wrong".
I saw that. It sort of struck me as a company learning from their mistakes. I still think extrapolating a bait and switch doom and gloom catastrophe is a bit much :)
> The worst part of the whole thing is that few people realize the significant amount of lag between when a company starts falling down before it hits bottom.
To borrow a phrase from Adam Smith, there is a lot of ruin in a great company.
reply