3 ms·
I think there's some merit to that argument, but the other side is what happens if funding dries up or significantly decreases (e.g. after another economic cris
by Vinnl 6y ago
I think there's some merit to that argument, but the other side is what happens if funding dries up or significantly decreases (e.g. after another economic crisis) - do they have enough runway? Through that lens, IIRC they're not that wealthy.
(And in terms of work that people actually appreciate: I also very much appreciate that it's practically never down and responds quickly. Just not as actively, I suppose, since you only notice when it's not there.)
- sqqqqrly 6y agoThe ends justify the deceit?
- Vinnl 6y agoWhat deceit?
- marcinzm 6y agoThey have $180 million in the bank after you take away liabilities. Their expenses are $90 million however a decade ago they were $20 million and I believe page views haven't increased that dramatically. They spend $20 million a year on grants and awards. If they focused on just running the website they'd probably have a decade of runway. If they had saved money instead of growing expenses until now then they'd probably have had 20+ years of runway by now.