121–128 of 128 posts
If Fidelity just did a 25% write down on SnapChat on the most senior portion of a $600m investment round, and assuming that Fidelity has at least a 1x liquidity pref/ratchet, then SnapChat is now valued at $462M floor, not $15 billion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your watch is wrong for 1438 out of 1440 minutes each day, or 99.86% of the time, assuming minute precision. I haven't made a very high percentage of bad calls yet, AFAIK. Clever one-liners that are barely relevant to the topic really don't add anything to the conversation.
If you use milliseconds you can even make that 99.99% or higher! The point is, that watch is verifiable accurate twice daily, you can look at it and will tell you exactly the right time. It will do so 365 days per year, which is 730 times. This is a very large number of accurate predictions without being useful at all. The only kind of useful predictions are the ones that you are prepared to back with either money or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you use milliseconds you can even make that 99.99% or higher! The point is, that watch is verifiable accurate twice daily, you can look at it and will tell you exactly the right time. It will do so 365 days per year, which is 730 times. This is a very large number of accurate predictions without being useful at all. The only kind of useful predictions are the ones that you are prepared to back with either money or…
It's nice to see you only value opinions of people as wealthy as you are. ;)
If Fidelity just did a 25% write down on SnapChat on the most senior portion of a $600m investment round, and assuming that Fidelity has at least a 1x liquidity pref/ratchet, then SnapChat is now valued at $462M floor, not $15 billion.
I don't follow. Can you explain in more detail?
Next bubble burst is close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the sky is falling...
... on our heads :o))
Now look at the top rated contribution. A few more words but essentially the same meaning.
Its just that the original nytimes article is so ridiculous, that it deserves nothing but making fun of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... on our heads :o))
Can't help a smile: Our pun is downvoted to be the least helpful on this page. Now look at the top rated contribution. A few more words but essentially the same meaning. Its just that the original nytimes article is so ridiculous, that it deserves nothing but making fun of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, yes. I think better examples though would be: - A rapid increase in states requiring HS students to complete some of their classes online in order to save money. - Folks being unable to get treatment for all sorts of health conditions and mental illnesses. - The prison system not providing adequate job training or rehabilitation. - The costs of college education increasing while the quality of that educati…
"SF specializes in creating companies that are essentially 'New York as a Service' bc its infrastructure sucks." I've also heard the "mom" variation. I've never heard "mom" equated with "New York" but it is insightful in its own strange way.
(I'll show myself out.)