News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to profits.

Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by dazc on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @02:58AM (#16263644)
Title is a bit misleading...

'The Guardian has halved its operating losses compared to two years ago, now looking at breaking even by 2019.'

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by RichieAHB on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @03:39AM (#16263795)
That sounds like the definition of "path to profit" to me.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by peoplewindow on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @03:44AM (#16263823)
If "still losing money after years of losses, might break even in a couple of years or might not" can be defined as on the "path to profit", can any company not be described that way? Does the phrase mean anything?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by kgwgk on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @04:17AM (#16263959)
It means that while earnings are negative (i.e. no profits yet), the first derivative is positive (i.e. it will reach profitability if the trend continues, it is on the path to profits).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by salvar on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @04:54AM (#16264098)
No, not all companies can be described that way.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by dazc on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @04:11AM (#16263926)
It may be, may be not? I was just expecting an explanation of how they had become profitable so, for me, the title was a bit misleading.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by pwinnski on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @07:43AM (#16264772)
Then you misread the title, unfortunately.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How the Guardian improbably put itself on the path to pro... by dazc on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @10:07AM (#16265829)
Maybe I should have just ignored it?
[ Parent | on HN ]