"Given CrowdStrike’s financials — they made a net loss of $845m between 2018 to 2024 and took on $743m of debt during the same timeframe — it is quite possible a very public fight is going to emerge in courts around liability"
Yuck. If the company is so unprofitable, and they are forced to pay for all the damage caused by their mistake, can they survive? Who is going to lend them money next time?
@jgg Wouldn't be the first company whose main, or even only, purpose would be to sow chaos. Twitter itself has never been profitable, to the best of my knowledge. Has Uber ever made a profit after all these years? Maybe we should ask ourselves why such companies exist and who benefits from their existence.
Most of those Silicon Valley (-ish) startups goal is to burn money until they get a monopoly of their market. When they are getting big enough, they are usually bought by competitors in order to get their client base or simply remove a competitor (Meta has being doing this a lot). If they are not bought, they wait until they get all the market, then start screwing their users raising prices, selling their data, etc. (that's the enshittification).
Uber can't profit as long as there are cabbies. The plan is ruining all of them, then screw their clients badly. Lucky us they are having real trouble getting there.
Twitter can't profit because it is big, but it has never been meant to be as big as Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok or Whatsapp have got or can get. And it is very hard to sell ads for your social network when there is something like Meta. Even worse, the new owner is a moron with the only talent is for astroturfing small companies in need of investors.
