• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 minutes ago

    TTAM later said it had obtained backing from a “Fortune 500 company with a current market capitalization of more than $400 billion and $17 billion of cash on hand.”

    That’s not at all concerning.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      1 day ago

      In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because they’re the ones risking everything, or something like this, I’m not an economists.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Yes, and the workers risk nothing, or something like that, I’m told. 😂

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          1 day ago

          I get the sentiment and I’m all for workers sharing in profits, but what do they really risk by working at a company? Sure, the company can fail and they might be stuck in a bad situation, but shareholders and owners probably have it worse in that scenario, right?

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            35 minutes ago

            Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:

            • Health
            • Time
            • Opportunity (could be working someplace else that’s better)

            These have a lot of dimension to them, including how one quantifies what “pay” actually is/for, what legal restrictions there are around taking the job (e.g. non-compete, non-arbitration), work/life balance, and so on.

            Risk comes into play where the employee takes a bet that the job won’t destroy their health, work only as much as is absolutely necessary, and have taken a position at the optimal balance of responsibility, personal growth, retirement prospects, and income. It’s a risk since there are substantial barriers to changing to a new job, so you can wind up “stuck” in a bad position, but can’t know until after you start.

            • rigatti@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              15 hours ago

              They don’t lose their life if a company goes under though? I don’t mean to diminish the contribution of workers. I think they need a much higher share of what companies take in, and they need more voices at their companies.

          • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            Depends, are you considering the fact that 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10% of Americans? Also are you considering that being in the top 10% means you likely have rich friends and family that could bail you out? I think black rock is going to be fine.

            Most businesses aren’t like my friends parents little Chinese restraunt.

            To me using the, “think of the shareholders” line is silly for a reason. The biggest privilege is the privilege to make mistakes without becoming impoverished. Workers have it much harder in that respect.

            Edit: grammer

            • rigatti@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              15 hours ago

              You make a good point that the shareholder/business owner class is more likely to have better safety nets. So from that standpoint, if the absolute value of their loss is greater, it could have a much less significant impact on their lives.

              I think you may be underestimating the amount of small businesses though, at least in the US.

    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company

      I’m not sure what he she actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasn’t the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Ah dang you did point it out. They even just copied the top comment there, unless they are ColdWetDog.

    • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      So fraud? They defrauded the investors by destroying it. I bet she sold before the news the company is going under.

  • rumba@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Debts are gone AND now he can sell the user data with impunity! No NO, that was that OTHER GUY

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    1 day ago

    Actually an interesting turn of events. Sounds like she’d been fighting hard to get it back, but they’d been fighting her on it.

    Not sure what it all means, but there’s something going on there. It’s all very unusual.

  • drspod@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I thought they had already agreed the sale of the genetic data to another company?

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Ok so I think I’m the first person in the comments to actually click to read the article, cause I’m gonna say something I’m not seeing.

    How did you get it to auto snap to the article comment section?
    Didnt realize you could share that and it wouldn’t default to the article.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Everything after the # character in the URL is called an anchor and it’s not actually being sent to the website server so it’s meant for your browser (though the server can see it using javascript). The anchor can point to any ID in the HTML of the web page and browser will scroll it into view on page load. You can find the ID of any element using right click -> inspect though not all elements have explicit ids.