boomshucka

Again, a minute to look at their financials. There is a thing called the "cashflow statement". They are not "burning through cash". Operating cashflow is positive. Some quarters their capex is larger than operating cashflow, sometimes it's less.

So to suggest they are "drowning in debt" only shows no understanding of simple financial matters, and little regard for securities legislation. Not all opinions are valid.

No, I can't. You can go look at the SEC like everyone else who can be bothered to actually have a clue before making comments. This is public information, there is no need to be so lazy as to not even bother looking.

Issuing debt does not mean a company is "drowning in debt". The term "junk" debt does not mean a company is "drowning in debt". If a company has more cash on balance sheet than debt, it's net debt is negative. When they issued this debt they had negative net debt. Now they have negative net debt. They were not, are not and have never been "drowning in debt". Promoting false information about a public company is potentially illegal.

Massive leverage? Can you not read a balance sheet? They aren't drowning in debt. They have negative net debt.

This is an incredibly stupid analogy. Twitter doesn't give it's users money. Twitter doesn't give it's advertisers money. They run a high gross margin business. Your analogy would be a NEGATIVE gross margin business. Their cost base is too high right now given the revenue, but there is no reason to think they need to grow at the same rate. Many profitable companies at one stage ran at a loss.

quarterly results.

You are likely right, it probably isn't clear cut. But if there is a response to his discussion of physics, it should be around physics, not the fact that he is a "doubter". The world would be in an awful place without any "doubters".

(this is not a swipe at poster).

This article by Suster is awful. The take down discussed physics, Suster discusses "doubters". The take down did not suggest it wasn't possible to transmit energy through sound waves, simply that it seemed very impractical to be able to charge a phone without pretty drastic side effects.

"Modern Portfolio Theory, Efficient Market Theory, and Capital Asset Pricing Model espoused by the world's leading financial economists" is also a fantastic lie. Who are these world leading financial economists? The worlds best investors believe such theories are pure nonsense. The best minds in finance do not believe in MPT, EMT or CAPM. Pure garbage written by people with physics envy.

Try 250k and see the responses.

Seriously. Virtually all people complaining about hiring are way off base on compensation. If they were to increase (sometimes they literally need to double) comp, they'd see things get a lot easier.

Yes, it is. You can't just say "I should be able to get x for y". You are in dreamland, pure and simple.

They do some kinda misleading accounting for AWS. They don't count the capital leases as expenses in "operating income" for AWS, it get's counted at the entire company level. So, because they don't have to expense any depreciation/(expense for capital expenditure in some form) at the AWS level, the "operating profit" at AWS is artificially high and would be negative if it was properly showing the economics of that business.

This isn't to suggest amazon as a whole is doing anything wrong, they are following accounting standards, but that is one place where the standards for capital leases are misleading if you don't read the fine print.

"Is this straightforward" can't be figured in 10 minutes for the vast majority of projects. And if you are outsourcing to devs, "has the team done stuff like this" is going to take some time too. 10 minutes simply isn't enough time. Would you have the same thought about 1 minute? 5 minutes? At what point do you say "no, that isn't enough time?". I'll take a few hours as enough time for some reasonably small but not trivial number of projects as a %.

No disrespect meant, but no one with any real software development experience would suggest that a quick formula can be used to estimate the cost/time to develop a given project. Very experienced people spend lots of time up front trying to estimate cost/time and are usually not very close.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic... It is pretty absurd to think you are going to get your head around the requirements for a project and come up with a good estimate in 10 minutes. It suggests naivety or dishonesty. You choose.