"Going public" means something completely different now, especially for these companies in the news (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX, etc).
Going public used to mean selling a portion of your company for the capital required to grow. Ideally John Q. Public buys stock, the company grows, and they can sell the stock for more money.
These companies already have the capital required to grow from private investment, and already grew; they're behemoths. The act of "going public" are those private investors using the public market to cash out their investment. The exponential growth the public buyers are expecting to see has most likely already happened.
> This includes the ability to skip updates during device setup to get to the desktop faster...
There's only one complaint that practically everyone has regarding what's required "during device setup," and it's not updates. I can't say I'm shocked that it's being ignored.
I saw a similar conversation somewhere about some project saying they don't allow AI generated code.
It was asked that if "AI Generated Code" is just code suggested to you by a computer program, where does using the code that your IDE suggests in a dropdown? That's been around for decades. Is it LLM or "Gen AI" specific? If so, what specific aspect of that makes one use case good and one use case bad and what exactly separates them?
It's one of those situations where it seems easy to point at examples and say "this one's good and this one's bad", but when you need to write policy you start drowning in minutia.
> It's because Elon Musk's Twitter purchase and subsequent management convinced every executive in tech that you can cut to the bone, fuck your product's quality completely, and be totally fine.
I agreed with you up to this point. Twitter largely operated in the red for its entire existence prior to his "restructuring" to make it leaner and profitable. In my opinion, twitter went to shit when the incentive for creating engagement switched from gaining social capital to gaining... erm... actual capital. The laissez-faire attitude about allowing fairly terrible behavior on there gave it a PR black eye that probably didn't help either in the eyes of advertisers.
If I had to guess what happened with Block (and that's what we're all doing, guessing): a CEO's job is to make the line go up, and saying you introduced tools to increase productivity with half the staff (especially if you're overstaffed) seems to me a pretty easy way to do that. I saw someone on here refer to it as "Vibe CEOing", which I think is pretty on point. Again, just my opinion/guess.
The ruling was only about whether or not a bankruptcy court has the legal authority to declare that the individual members of the Sackler family are immune to being sued directly, which is an agreed-upon condition of the bankruptcy settlement. SCOTUS ruled that it did not, so the settlement as it stands is dead.
Purdue is not going to be operating in any capacity regardless of this ruling (except as a bank account holding the settlement funds).
Yes, from what I understand their entire business model is based on selling "world record" certifications to people and brands for pr/marketing stunts:
I'm guessing that their move in 2015 to put the kibosh on organizations using their Facebook account to self-promote will have a larger impact on this sort of thing.
They say it's in the name of reducing spam on your news feed, but something tells me that it's just a ruse to route that type of behavior to paid advertisements and to end the free ride for small businesses.
Going public used to mean selling a portion of your company for the capital required to grow. Ideally John Q. Public buys stock, the company grows, and they can sell the stock for more money.
These companies already have the capital required to grow from private investment, and already grew; they're behemoths. The act of "going public" are those private investors using the public market to cash out their investment. The exponential growth the public buyers are expecting to see has most likely already happened.