87 karma · joined April 7, 2014
the title does the reflection on behalf of the reader which is a disservice.
The HN title editorializes its own answer to the author's question.
So “society” should be able to veto a sale, but when payroll is due the owners are on the hook?
Are you a Trevor Milton fan? I didn’t see as much merit in his body of work.
Our modus operandi was that a growth equity investment should _never_ go to zero. The new portfolio thinking has shifted to the right: 1/3 make 1-2x, 1/3 make 2-3x, 1/3 make 3x or more.
Say they can fill up all the founder series slots along with 5,000 regular slots, that’s $500,000,000. Smart :)
Two possible takes are that this is either a low enough court that the judge had autonomy in his ruling and wasn't influenced by the investment, or Beijing is sending a message that the Didi investment will not grant Apple any sort of impunity going forward.
I would love to get any feedback from the community that helped inspire this.