251–255 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. If they’re so profitable already, why take the company public at all?
Because there are likely many employees and investors who want to cash out. Going public makes their shares liquid. It's (probably) not reasonable for the company to repurchase that equity or to pay employees pure cash comp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand where you're coming from and the admiration for someone for whom no problem is seemingly impossible. I wouldn't glorify "brilliant code" that much though because code should be made to be changed. If it isn't, it's a fragility trait, not a positive trait. Code that no one knows how to change is opportunity lost. I do understand that it may be hard to create stuff for others when you're alone and going ve…
I don't think changeable code is the number one priority. The goal is to solve a problem and code that solves a problem without needing to change is sufficient. Code that doesn't need to change is a really good sign that you've got something good.
> Code that doesn't need to change is a really good sign that you've got something good.
Not really, but you're thinking in terms of "my code nailed it because I'm not touching it" and that has NOTHING to do with it being easy to change.
More and more companies are now holding bitcoin in their treasuries (including Figma according to the filling). It's interesting, but it makes a lot of sense.
Why does it make sense? When the price is so volatile. If the companies are so confident of their trading ability then they should stop their existing business and become trading companies.
Don't forget how Figma bullied Loveable from being able to use "dev mode" [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/15/figma-sent-a-cease-and-des...
Don't forget how Loveable used the moment as an acquisition tactic, which was probably the whole point.
“Used the moment” sounds a lot like surviving a punch and then asking for help. If you think that’s scheming, maybe revisit who threw the first punch.