"However, our source told us Moz will likely pocket $400m to $450m a year between now and 2023 from the arrangement, citing internal discussions held earlier this year."
It is possible they made it up but that's entirely in line with the past deals they made. If this was a factor in the lay-offs then it should have been mentioned. No evidence from you, article claims a source told them this, for now I'll go with the article until other evidence pops up, after all it looks like they were spot on with regards to the timing of the deal.
Unless you are willing to tell us how much the deal is assuming you are privy to that info, then we'll use that figure instead.
Reporters report, they don't make shit up. They may occasionally get the details wrong but in general they have a source of some sort that will give them info which they then pass on if it is deemed credible. If the deal wasn't inked and rumored not to be passed then that was newsworthy because everybody expected it to go through. It is very well possible that the reporter was wrong-footed on purpose. Anyway, without any proof to the contrary I'll take his word over yours so unless you want to substantiate with a figure rather than vague suggestions then I suggest we let that stand. Good negotiations on FF behalf and Google's anti-trust woes in Europe could very well get a deal inked at the same level as before.
Finally, and this is reaching, it would be terrible if it ever came out that the reason the Google deal went through is because Mozilla let go of 25% of their employees, specifically the Servo team. Of course that's total speculation on my part but the optics here aren't good at all.
Oh, and thank you for all the hard work on my daily driver.
Ok, so no info then. Sorry, but if you want to discredit that reporter you will have to do better than just a general statement about reporters 'lying all the time', that sounds just a bit too much like a certain politician. I've been on the receiving end of interviews and have had my words misunderstood and occasionally twisted in a way that did not align with my intended meaning but I've yet to meet a reporter who would make something up.
The 'Weekly World News' was fiction, I hold the register to a slightly higher standard.
It is possible they made it up but that's entirely in line with the past deals they made. If this was a factor in the lay-offs then it should have been mentioned. No evidence from you, article claims a source told them this, for now I'll go with the article until other evidence pops up, after all it looks like they were spot on with regards to the timing of the deal.
Unless you are willing to tell us how much the deal is assuming you are privy to that info, then we'll use that figure instead.