Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dsnr's comments login

> enter a sort of maintenance mode

There exists such a mode: it's called dividend distribution. But currently DBX and many other tech companies aren't paying any dividends to stock holders. So if it's not growing and not paying dividends, what is the company doing?


Providing goods/services. Perhaps the qualifier "being publicly traded" will help


I think the question is more for investors. If the company isn't growing and isn't paying a dividend, why would I buy shares?


In that instance you’d be looking for free cash flow, and Dropbox has a lot of it.

https://investors.dropbox.com/static-files/df1fe33d-3995-452...


If its not being returned to shareholders its worthless


I bring attention the qualifier; if it's not performing and likely won't be, why is it traded?

A company that is relatively stable and holds no grand world-domination-to-feed-shareholder plans is still nice


Enshittify


VN - Vietnam

SK - South Korea

JP - Japan

FDI - Foreign Direct Investment

RoI - Return on Investment

JV - Joint Venture

ToT - Transfer of Technology ?


You two are funny. Looks a bit like good cop, bad cop.

Informative, though!


TMTLA - Too many three letter acronyms.


> The A340 was built before ETOPS

For those who don’t know, the acronym stands for Engines Turn or Passengers Swim.


Sarcasm can be hard on the internet.

It actually stands for: Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards

and is a pretty logically laid out standard.


10^5 particles per liter, not 105


Thanks, fixed. It didn't copy it


Why not just say 100,000? Its not exactly 10^23 or something crazy.


You know the current generation of AI is revolutionary when you have shove it down people’s throats to be able to pretend you’re an “AI company”.


For now. See you at the next attempt.



> There’s a million wrong ways to pet the bird, but Ambient gives you a falconers glove, pulls out a fresh raptor and shows you how to take off it’s hood while holding some rabbit meat at the other side of the field

Had to bail out when I got to this part.


Cereals have a high glycaemic index even without any additives, so they’re objectively not good food.


Saying that food with a high glycemic index is simply “not good food” shows a lack of understanding regarding what the glycemic index indicates and what constitutes “good food”.

There’s food with a high glycemic index that is most certainly not “bad food” (like fruit), and there’s food with a low glycemic index that definitely could be by what I assume is your criteria (like butter).

Also the statement “cereals have a high glycemic index” isn’t even true, since some of them do (like corn flakes), while some of them don’t (oatmeal, which is close to oranges).


Fruit that I would consider as good food have a lower GI than your favorite cereal, so your argument that there exists high GI food that works well as good food, doesn’t stand. Bad example. There’s definitely fruit out there that I would only rarely touch.


That would vary depending on the cereal though. They're not all high.

https://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/glycemicIndexDetails.php...


That is an interesting chart. Apparently the breakpoint between medium and high is 70, and some just barely squeaked in under that in the upper 60s. That doesn’t inspire a lot is confidence.


It depends on the person, I suppose. For me, GI=55+ is quite high. Soda and cola is 60, and those are go-to for raising blood glucose in people with type 1 diabetes. Something that has emergency use properties for raising blood glucose fast and by a lot doesn't feel like it is very healthy to consume all the time.

And besides, I think we all decided that sugary soda is unhealthy. But we still consider cereal healthy. They both seem to trigger a similar metabolic response, and have a similar satiety profile.

Everyone chooses for themselves, in their own circumstances, though. Even straight up eating glucose with caffeine makes for a great pre-workout mix in a pinch.


Sure, 55 may be considered high for someone with a medical condition, but saying “it depends on the person” is a strange way to phrase that. For most people it’s not high.


> For most people it’s not high.

In other words, it depends on the person. :)

Some people are not fans of eating things approaching soda GI, as they have a feeling of a sugar rush, followed by a crash and hunger. No need for a medical condition - it can simply be a dietary preference.

It depends on the person and circumstance whether GI above 55 is high. Everyone needs to figure out for themselves, but it helps to be aware of GI in food and see how different GIs make you feel and function. And it helps to be aware that soda-type GI isn't considered very healthy by some, with ongoing debate.

Also, possibly 55+, 65+, or whatever arbitrary threshold is not too high for most people. There's some debate around that now. So I still think it doesn't hurt to be aware. But possibly.


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

Search: