> Those happened at completely different times. The article stated a 2 month difference toward profitability, and provided no other frame of reference for the

> Those happened at completely different times. The article stated a 2 month difference toward profitability, and provided no other frame of reference for the (immediate? eventual?) Hawaii getaway. They do mention at "the end of the year" but there is no information stated about when this 6 month "get out of the tailspin" process began in the [calendar/fiscal] year, so that's non-helpful. Without additional context, that's a single digit number of pay cycles between, "Surprise! You're laid off to save the company" to "We can afford a lifestyle of excess". I mean, I would hope that it didn't go down this way, and the paragraph was just written awkwardly. If the author wants to make that clearer, I'd be happy to listen. But as that blurb stands now, it reads as a casual dismissal of the "good people" let go at best, and a slap in their face at worst, which isn't a good look.