this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
662 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
89409 readers
4179 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except that it doesn't? They claimed 33bn in revenue, but they had 104bn net loss. So no, they were not profitable. In their IPO they literally claim to not be profitable and that they don't ensure they'll be profitable "in the future". Not the near future, just the future as a whole.
So they were claiming to have been net profitable on certain things in q2, which again, more to the point, is them trying to shine a turd and make it look like they’ve got a future.
I get your point but their argument is basically moving the goalpost. The important thing is if the company is net profitable, and they're not.
I heard, big part of those losses are the debts paid in stock, so when their stock rises the debts rise and the difference is written up as losses.
Not an economist though, so I might be completely wrong