The linked comment is dismissive and, in hindsight, ludicrous, saying that SO won't be around in a year (in 2008).
The only reasonable conclusion to reach from this is that your response is a not-so-subtle derision of my statement, basically claiming it is just as ludicrous. Or am I reading this wrong?
If not, this confuses me for several reasons:
1. It's very un-HN to be so snarky, even petty. You might be confusing HN for proggit?
2. I love SO, the (original) site. Not once have I ever questioned its viability or value;
3. I have however raised questions about the ability of SE sites to gain traction in their respective verticals, a position thus far backed up by your own numbers [1].
4. I actually wish you guys well. I'm a big fan. The snarky response to a dispassionate position/question makes me wonder if I've hit a nerve?
There are two kinds of comments you'll see on the Internet: uninformed hate/trolling like you linked to. You seem to be suggesting my comment falls into that. I disagree but hey, that's your prerogative. Whatever the case, there's no point in responding to those kinds of comments.
The second kind are neutral/positive, arguably informed and generally reasonable. My position is my comment falls into this category. When you respond to those with snarky comments, it actually does you a great disservice, portraying you as petty and small-minded (neither of which, for the record, I believe to be true).
I know who you are because of StackOverflow, and I came to respect your opinion through your answers while I participated there. I have to agree with you. You asked a very tame question and got a very unexpected response, all the more strange because you've been a big contributor to the flagship.
My interpretation is that he is going to use your comment, like the one he linked to, as motivation to prove you wrong. Maybe your comment will be printed out and put onto the wall of the SE office.
Are there multiple meanings of "burn rate" at play here?
I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low" - as in under $1 or 2 million. Of course "low" is a relative term, so it all depends on what the number is you are comparing it against...
I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low"
Expense != Burn Rate
A burn rate is just negative cash flow. It's just the negative value found on the end of your income statement.
You're only considering salary. They're also bringing in money from their careers offering and their ads. Also, Amazon links get auto-converted into an affiliate link. On a site that gets as many pageviews as they do, these would be not insubstantial revenues, which reduces their burn rate.
The burn rate is very low.
The valuation is private.