you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -22 points 20 hours ago (7 children)

The authors working hard to pretend that this isn’t standard practice for IPOs.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 hours ago

    Of the numbers that are present in the document, a lot are unaudited and were not worked out according to GAAP — which S-1 numbers are supposed to conform to. There’s whole multi-page subsections of these BS numbers that you should not see in a credible S-1.

    In the USA, GAAP is not optional for large businesses. GAAP is expected for businesses with thousands of customers at a minimum; Anthropic wants to scale up to millions of customers and therefore has zero excuses for non-GAAP numbers. Please be less UK-brained in the future, thanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    i'm sure that you can point out the specific fragment of the article that you're disagreeing with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 17 hours ago

    Also that subterfuge and misdirection are par for the course doesn't make this any better. If anything you'd expect such an obvious slum dunk trillion dollar world changing cancer curing robot god enabling infinity profit making technology to need much less of that to become attractive to investors.

  • source
  • parent