One of the biggest dangers you have with Microsoft if you're not in the USA, the US government can turn off your access for shiggles.
Readit News> "these conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern"
When the story got attention yesterday I recognized that phrase as the standard boilerplate language securities lawyers warn public companies to include in filings anytime it looks possible that they might not be able to fully meet all their obligations on time. It's a CYA to prevent (or reduce the cost of) investor lawsuits if things go badly. It's not uncommon to see this phrase sometimes pop-up even in filings of companies who are pretty obviously going to be fine, so it doesn't mean much because it covers a huge range of conditions.
I'm sure it's already appeared in Kokak's filings in recent years. The only surprising thing is that some media outlet decided to headline it as click-bait and it worked well enough a lot of people not familiar with the phrase and its lack of significance saw it. Nice of Kodak to at least issue a press release but unfortunate the click-bait got that much attention. It must have been a slow news day.
Even a cursory glance at Kodak's financials shows enough revenue that creditors certainly aren't going to force the company into liquidation in the foreseeable future. Instead, the company will renegotiate and/or refinance the obligations - which is what usually happens in these situations. When there's significant revenue from ongoing operations, even if it's somewhat unprofitable, it's usually in everyone's interest to keep the company operating in the hope it can be turned around. In fact, scary sounding statements like that are sometimes intentionally issued by the company as part of the debt renegotiation process (although it doesn't appear that's the case here as things aren't that serious). Basically, the implied threat from the company to creditors is "renegotiate debt terms or you may get much less or nothing."
It last appeared in a Kodak filing in 2019
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=%2522these%2520conditio...
Oddly it didn't appear prior to the 2012 Chapter 11.
If you read financial reports frequently you'd know this is standard language included in reports of many companies people wouldn't think are in any real trouble.
What is the most stable company that has used this language?
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=%2522these%2520conditio...
Exhibit B: video games.
Montreal (or any other video game hub) is a great place to start a software business. There are tons of highly qualified, underpaid and overworked software engineers to poach from the video game firms.
Exhibit C: Zoo employees
abirch commented on Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US apple.com/newsroom/2025/0... · Posted by u/thm
They're all like that. Patents are pretty specific.
If they're not very specific there's frequently prior art.
Good for Kodak for responding quickly AND being transparent about the numbers involved.
FWIW, discussions about Kodak's decline have been going on for years. This thread is from 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597
This is from Kodak's Q2 Financial report:
As a result, these conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern as of the issuance date of the Company’s second quarter financials.
https://www.kodak.com/en/company/press-release/q2-2025-finan...
As Walter Bagehot said "Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone..."
Seems misleading or at the very least incomplete to blame these fees on "the power of the free market" when the visa / mastercard duopoly exists due to regulations making the entry barrier to creating a new card network essentially infinite
Anyone is free to use discover and it works for most merchants in the USA.
American Express leverages the fact that most consumers don’t care what the merchant is charged
G2, Sourceforge (yes, that one), and Gartner’s Capterra/GetApp/SoftwareAdvice all have the same business plan: charge vendors $x,xxx+ per month to outrank other vendors in their made up categories.
Of course, you can technically list for free.
But look! For the low low price of $x,xxx per month, now you can show one of 40 tailor-made award icons on your site!
Or, unlock the privilege of showing “user reviews” from our site on your site! (of course if you had managed to get reviews independently, you’re not allowed to use the widget without paying)
Don’t have reviews? Ah, I forgot to mention. The $x,xxx plan also comes with “review generation” — we’ll pay users to write reviews for you!
Oh, and on an unrelated note, the $x,xxx plan just also happens to unlock dofollow links across each of those 40 made up categories, which all rank highly in google. And the $xx,xxx plan means that - user ratings aside - you can end up at the top of those categories.
It’s hard to describe it other than the author says: a grift. Seeing those logos on other companies sites are now a huge turn off to me personally, and I haven’t yet capitulated for my own SaaS, but I suspect this isn’t the feeling of the execs they seek to target. Or maybe it is, and it’s just the price of doing business.
I think this is the at same model that the NYTimes book reviews back had in the 1990s. Pay us money and we'll say nice things.
It'll be interesting to see how AI Agents approach things. My prediction is that more of our media is going to be controlled by our AI Agent's Algorithm instead of Google, Twitter, and Facebook's algorithm or some distant editors who decided what went on the front page of the newspaper.
> please be surgically precise with your terms
There's always a tension between precision in every explanation and the "moral" truth. I can say "a SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) vector unit like the TPU VPU with 32 ALUs (SIMD lanes) which NVIDIA calls CUDA Cores", which starts to get unwieldy and even then leaves terms like vector units undefined. I try to use footnotes liberally, but you have to believe the reader will click on them. Sidenotes are great, but hard to make work in HTML.
For terms like MXU, I was intending this to be a continuation of the previous several chapters which do define the term, but I agree it's maybe not reasonable to assume people will read each chapter.
There are other imprecisions here, like the term "Warp Scheduler" is itself overloaded to mean the scheduler, dispatch unit, and SIMD ALUs, which is kind of wrong but also morally true, since NVIDIA doesn't have a name for the combined unit. :shrug:
I agree with your points and will try to improve this more. It's just a hard set of compromises.
2) What are your thoughts on links to the wiki articles under things such as "SIMD" or "ALUs" for the precise meaning while using the metaphors in your prose?
Most novices tend to Google and end up on Wikipedia for the trees. It's harder to find the forest.