this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
390 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

71998 readers
3392 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 220 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Start company.

Run it into the ground.

Go bankrupt.

Buy it back.

πŸ“ˆ

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 122 points 2 weeks ago

Debts are gone might as well

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 73 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because they're the ones risking everything, or something like this, I'm not an economists.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (13 children)

Yes, and the workers risk nothing, or something like that, I'm told. πŸ˜‚

[–] SMillerNL@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

I’m pretty sure the users risked a lot too for this one

load more comments (12 replies)

Bondholders are having a haircut.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company

I’m not sure what ~~he~~ she actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasn’t the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. πŸ’€

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah dang you did point it out. They even just copied the top comment there, unless they are ColdWetDog.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 79 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Actually an interesting turn of events. Sounds like she'd been fighting hard to get it back, but they'd been fighting her on it.

Not sure what it all means, but there's something going on there. It's all very unusual.

[–] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 28 points 2 weeks ago

Selling off user data but has an excuse to "wasn't me" the whole situation

There's still some gift left to squeeze out. She's not giving up on a good bad thing.

[–] rumba@piefed.zip 62 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Debts are gone AND now he can sell the user data with impunity! No NO, that was that OTHER GUY

[–] WhiteRice@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] rumba@piefed.zip 22 points 2 weeks ago

heh fair, gender bias for me.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 3 points 2 weeks ago

Hey, don't talk about Guy Incognito like that

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How about the data they sold

[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

That's exactly where all the value is. Selling people's fucking genetic information. What makes it even more valuable is that it can be used against all subsequent descendants of the person that willingly gave it up. Do a DNA test like this and you're selling out your entire family.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

TTAM later said it had obtained backing from a β€œFortune 500 company with a current market capitalization of more than $400 billion and $17 billion of cash on hand.”

That's not at all concerning.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

A little searching finds only one company that really fits the bill. Costco has a market cap of $433B and had a reported $14.8B cash on hand as of May 11. That's an interesting possibility that I wouldn't have guessed. Costco is less evil than most big corporations, so that's a little hopeful if I got it right.

Oracle comes close with a market cap of $583B. That's indeed over $400B, but that would make the description a bit weird. In any case, Oracle makes more sense from a business angle. Unfortunately, they are near the top of the evil scale.

[–] musubibreakfast@lemm.ee 18 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Calling it here, Costco is going to use the genetic information to create the perfect hot dog.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Costco already creates the perfect hotdog.

I say they should invest in bringing back the Polish dog. That was fucking delicious.

[–] Avidis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Come on up to Canada, we still got that garlic bomb. I can still taste the one from last week 🀀

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

If it costs $1.51 I'm gonna flip shit.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Soylent dogs

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Membership is going to be linked to your DNA, the register will prick your finger to make sure you're valid.

[–] insomniac@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

It’s almost certainly Oracle but there’s a slight possibility this is correct

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 10 points 1 week ago

Shit, Oracle was down in the low $400B range in May. Apparently being evil pays well in the current administration.

[–] drspod@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought they had already agreed the sale of the genetic data to another company?

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 11 points 2 weeks ago

There's an article in the link.

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 24 points 2 weeks ago

This roller coaster keeps on rollering

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 7 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Ok so I think I'm the first person in the comments to actually click to read the article, cause I'm gonna say something I'm not seeing.

How did you get it to auto snap to the article comment section?
Didnt realize you could share that and it wouldn't default to the article.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The "#comment" at the end of the URL. It's a title/heading/fragment in HTML that hints to your browser to go there directly.

Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL#fragment

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Oh. Neat.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Everything after the # character in the URL is called an anchor and it's not actually being sent to the website server so it's meant for your browser (though the server can see it using javascript). The anchor can point to any ID in the HTML of the web page and browser will scroll it into view on page load. You can find the ID of any element using right click -> inspect though not all elements have explicit ids.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

I've no idea to be honest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buske@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All your DNA just got bought.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 8 points 1 week ago

Bought back by the one person who already had prior access, and bought by her own research non-profit. As far as privacy concerns go, that's the best case scenario.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

how the fuck did this company go bankrupt what did i miss

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's not a great business model if you think about it. Customers pay a small fee once then never again.

[–] solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

When did selling a product instead of a subscription become a bad business model?

Edit: I have a lot of trouble believing that a product that could theoretically have value to every person on the planet for current and every future generations, that can't be passed along used or resold, couldn't develop a successful sustainable business model.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago

When it's an inexpensive product that nobody ever has a reason to buy twice yet remains an ongoing cost for the company? (They keep the data available for review and continue to update it with useful information as knowledge of genetic traits and lineages grows). That's not a way to build an ongoing cash flow to cover expenses. Especially when all the people inclined to be interested have already purchased.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

So glad I never did this one.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί