this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
1281 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

59148 readers
3105 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (7 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is the quote:

"I don't see any scenario where they're responsible for less than 10% of the value destruction, so around $4 billion."

In my head, he is comparing the minimum size of ADLs value reduction to be 10% or 4 billion. 10% of 44 billion is 4,4 billion. In this comment he is not saying anything about the current value except that 10% of 44 is around 4.

How else can you read it?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can read it as “being responsible for 10% of the [total] value destruction, equal to $4B”.

So if they’re responsible for 10% of the total value loss, and that’s equivalent to $4B, then 100% of the total value lost would be $40B.

Otherwise you would say “they’re responsible for destroying 10% of the value”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Right. So it's a Schroedinger's quote...😑

But thanks for pointing out what was obvious for others

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)