You don't need $10 billion in revenue. You could just coast along and only hit, what, $9.8 billion? And then you wouldn't have to ruin 500 people's lives. I'm betting the CEO has a bonus scheduled if he hits this goal.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
288 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
87184 readers
4010 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Say it with me boys and girls… Infinite growth is not sustainable…
Yep, cancer isn't sustainable.
Good analogy …. 🤯
Exactly.
This is why I'm happy I work for a Family owned company. They know some years revenue just won't be bigger and that's ok. I've only seen like one wave of "layoffs" and even then most of the people that left just took an early retirement deal coz they were going to retire that year anyways, so that basically fixed the re organization that needed to happen
That's fine, a human or any other life too only grow until they die.
The problem is that some companies don't die when they should.
That includes Microsoft and Apple and Intel, among others.
Infinite growth in living beings is known as cancer.
On another level it's known as Sosnovsky's hogweed
OK, my sense of humor is conditioned by playing video games for like 6-7 hours to avoid seeing people sending dumb May 9 congratulations.
I hear what you’re saying, but revenue isn’t profit.
Yes, but I dont think that's relevant. Whether gross or net, they are still ruining lives to achieve a pointless profit motive.
Edit: relevant, not irrelevant
It's relevant in that it's entirely misleading. If profits are low they aren't actually able to just "coast along" making less revenue.
Crowdstrike posted a GAAP Net Loss of 20 million for 2025. So a 30-50M cost savings is the difference in continuing on at all or not. There's more to it than that, obviously.
Your point is (probably) valid once you fix your words which is what I assume you mean by saying it's not relevant. But, instead of telling people their rebuttal is irrelevant you should try to adjust your own words to convey your message more accurately.
The quarterly profit motive where CEOs are incentivized through bonus structures to focus on short term profit goals leads to situations where the companies product or service is substandard and they make bad long term decisions that affect the lives of many including their own employees when they over hire and then can no longer afford to pay them.
Might be worth mentioning how much money the company spent in stock buybacks, and how much the executives were compensated in previous years. It's a shame.
Profit isn’t required to maintain a company. Only enough revenue to cover costs. Everything else is a surplus.
Profit would be appropriate if it were earmarked to offset difficult future fiscal periods, so that the business could continue to operate in lean times without having to punish employees through layoffs or failure to keep up with cost of living or cutting back on other benefits.
But we all know that's not what happens. Owners never have to experience consequences; customers and employees always do, for things that they have no control over.
Absolutely, but I would even go as far as to say that things like rainy day funds or reinvestment should be considered costs of business not “things we might do with profit”.
Oh yeah, yeah - from a financial/reporting perspective, such a fund wouldn't be considered "profit" in the strictest capitalist sense.
If you consider that kind of fund to be for the benefit of customers and employees, it might be considered "socialist profit." Capitalist profit serves the ownership class. Socialist profit serves labor and consumers.
Layoffs.
Otherwise known as "fuck you for working your ass off to make us rich, we're taking your health care, benefits and retirement. Your rent is now in jeopardy and we recommend potatoes at , or in place of, every meal".
I actually like potatoes, the safest food in terms of digestion and, sorry, body odors. With some sunflower or olive oil and salt potatoes are actually delicious. Add just some beef or herring, and some raw onions cut in rings (preferably the red sweet ones, but not necessarily), and maybe some thyme, and it becomes the food that should be.
Except I'm too lazy to go grocery shopping for that herring alone.
That July 2024 outage must have hit their forecast pretty hard. Best wishes to those affected :(
Yeah, I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner frankly.
What a fucking shit company.
Were they all in QA?
Clownstrike doesn’t know what that is, but they will be sure to ask an LLM about it some time!
I just read from a different article, they’re laying off 5% around the world.. and using AI instead.
Well... Time to do some strike with the crowd
Guess getting p0vvN3d cut their legs out after all. Who's going to buy them, y'think?
Probably Oracle. It's evil enough for their liking.
Don’t forget Broadcom!
If Oracle buys crowdstrike they will lose even more customers. That is a toxic brand. Anybody who can avoid them does.
My money is on Clownflare, truly a match made in hell.
This headline... Could mean we're laying off 1 million people and the 500 people left better keep up.