2 ms·
For all your points about technical and substantive arguments, I think you have skipped over the crux - > They had expected all inputs to yield at positive 2.5
by FridgeSeal 5y ago
For all your points about technical and substantive arguments, I think you have skipped over the crux -
> They had expected all inputs to yield at positive 2.5 mil
The crucial word here is expected. I can model all the things and expect that I’ll get a million dollars next week, but I haven’t lost a million when I inevitably don’t get it the next week.
If you make a prediction of +2.5m new subscriptions, during a pandemic and associated economic flux, and the prediction doesn’t pan out, the only thing that’s happened is that you made a bad prediction.
- incongruity 5y ago> If you make a prediction of +2.5m new subscriptions, during a pandemic and associated economic flux, and the prediction doesn’t pan out, the only thing that’s happened is that you made a bad prediction. I mean, that’s demonstrably false. The world works by individuals taking action based on expected outcomes. That crosses species and pervades every waking moment of life. It is involved in things as simple as walking and as complex as mate selection, migration or habitation choices among thousands of others. To treat this instance of variance between expected outcomes and reality as somehow different makes little sense.
- soneil 5y agoI think it's still very much relevant within the context of the stock dive though - no-one invests in what you've done, they invest in what they think you're going to do next. So they've disappointed their investors, and their investors have disappointed them right back.