>the article states they laid off 11% , less than 5 months ago. Unless the 11% and 17% are both talking about the original number of employees, the percentages

>the article states they laid off 11% , less than 5 months ago. Unless the 11% and 17% are both talking about the original number of employees, the percentages don't simply add up like that. If it was 11% of the original number of staff then 17% of the leftovers, it'd be 26%: .11+.17*.89=0.26 Still, that's not a huge difference so I don't know why people are getting up in arms over it.