Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They've suffered a massive contraction in revenue and already had to cut back hugely; you're ignoring that, and focusing on the bounce-back.


So what you're saying is that the NYT was doing badly, then had a massive bounce-back. I am supposed to ignore the bounce-back, and accept the contraction that ended at least a half decade ago as an explanation for what is happening today. Why would I do this?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: