Comment

Comment by fsckboy

A company worth trillions does not have trillions, that is the expectation for what it will be worth in the future based on money it has already spent and will need to keep spending.

Moreover, that translates to "it's actually carrying a huge nut* that puts extremely intense pressure on the company to figure out how to make as much money as possible as soon as possible."

(*nut is a slang word from loan sharking that has been adopted by (personal et al) finance people. It means "how much do you owe each month?" in the sense of, if you want to do a startup, advisors could ask, "what's your nut, and how much do you have left to self-invest?" Because monthly expense can be combined to a lump sum, it can also mean the size of the overall loan where the monthly interest is called the vig, "as long youze got da nut, you owe me da vig;" from vigorish, which would also require an etymology, but I'm assuming it's the word vigor combined with licorice meaning bitter tasting medicine, and nut because squirrels busy themselves carrying nuts.)

----

and if we can... and remember flame-prone people, if you reject the "can" premise, then the rest of the argument goes away, and you don't need to dispute it, you just say "you can't nuff said"; people here frequently seem challenged by propositions.

so, if we can...loosely describe the attitude you show here toward high market cap companies to be compatible with "left" or "socialist" or "populist" views shared by many others here, then I'll point out that at the same time wanting higher market prices paid for bounties because 'sploits are so expensive, is actually advocating for the same dread capitalist market based solution that leads to trillion dollar companies that never even had a trillion to begin with.

parent fsckboy 3 hours ago

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton