3 ms·
> That's irrelevant to its technical operations which was the concern I addressed though. It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take
by lesuorac 2y ago
> That's irrelevant to its technical operations which was the concern I addressed though.
It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take in more revenue than your expenses. Sure, you can run a deficit for a long time using outside investment like Uber as you grow revenue to exceed expenses. But, if you are a profitable company like Toys-R-Us and instead increase expenses (via interest payments) while not increasing revenue then you are going to go out of business eventually.
- coldtea 2y ago>It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take in more revenue than your expenses. It's irrelevant to the discussion, not irrelevant to running a business in general. The context being whether the "shredding" of government size "like he did Twitter" is workable. And the observation I added being that, from an operational standapoint, Twitter works fine, despite the doomsday scenarios when Musk started his shredding. Government doesn't have to attract advertisers - or even turn a profit. Just to reduce it's spending. So if it can do that while (as Twitter) maintaining the same operational capacity, that's a win.