| ▲ | 7bit 5 days ago |
| Was that the case? Can you provide sources to your claims and provide a foundation to your theories? |
|
| ▲ | dust-jacket 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| https://www.theregister.com/software/2019/04/01/nice-people-... Year before the MSFT takeover. No idea about their actual financials but they were definitely shedding headcount pre 2020, including kicking people for trying to unionise. |
| |
| ▲ | 7bit 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Nothing in there suggests that this was done to save the company from bankruptcy, which was the wild claim. | | |
| ▲ | shimman 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, it's like people are forgetting that the executive team at GitHub was composed of sex pests and people defending said sex pest. Of course they'll call any attempt at unionizing as "damaging" to the company and must be blamed accordingly! After all the company was in such dire straights that they were acquired for $7.5 billion! Only companies with terrible prospects get acquired, that's just business 102. | |
| ▲ | tomnipotent 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No one said anything about bankruptcy, you seem to have made that up for your "argument" or whatever this is. The company didn't have a viable business model and was running out of cash. MSFT right-sized the team for the project they wanted it to be, rather than the business model the prior company was trying to be. | | |
| ▲ | 7bit 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Learn to read > Would you rather the company went under after it ran out of money and had to fire everyone instead? | | |
| ▲ | tomnipotent 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Apparently you don't understand what bankruptcy means. A company can run out of funds and not be able to meet payroll without declaring bankruptcy, they're different things. But by all means keep talking out of your ass. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tomnipotent 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's literally a Google search away. If you had the time to write this comment, you had more than enough time to do the search. |
| |
| ▲ | 7bit 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not my job to proof the wild claim that the layoffs were to save the company from bankruptcy . | | |
| ▲ | tomnipotent 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The company raised $10M, did two rounds of layoffs totaling a quarter of the company, and was then acquired not long after. Early stage companies like that don't do layoffs unless it's to extend cash runway, but run wild with whatever unfounded fantasy you have about it all. |
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Google said you are 100% wrong. | | |
| ▲ | tomnipotent 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Right, the very public two rounds of layoffs the company did right before being "acquired" had nothing to do with them running out of money. |
|
|
