Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

@et+1jsetd4rb I didn’t let it dangle. I posted it…. Mockery at its finest.

@es+1jsetd4rb
If SAS pays me for 35 hours a week, I work 35 hours a week. That's the deal. Sounds like you're upset that someone works the hours they're compensated for. What a strange perspective to have.

@e8+1jsetd4rb,
Hey "No one needed you to give examples of how to calculate 24% growth" guy (@aj+1jsetd4rb), you're just going to let this dangle?

“ Anyone who knows me will tell you that I ask the same questions at work that I ask here”

Odd I attend most of the town hall type events and I’ve never once heard anyone stand up and ask those questions. I must have missed you which is probably easy to do with your 35 hour work week.

@ep+1jsetd4rb

The talk of "going public" was simply a PR stalling tactic ("future faking"). That's all it was since day 1. It keeps people on the hook waiting, instead of giving them factual information.

Same with the numbers and all the percentage cr-p. Speaking of which, you don't know what sales are actual Viya sales, and which are bundled. More smoke and mirrors.

@eh+1jsetd4rb
The number of private companies that have gone IPO in the past 25 years is astonishing. Most of us lived through the tech "bo-m" that created Facebook, Google, etc. I don't remember any of them needing five years to produce three years' worth of GAAP-compliant accounting.

"For a private company with ~12,000 employees operating in multiple countries, a GAAP conversion will typically take around 18 to 30 months."

ChatGPT said that, so you know it's true 😁.

“ Answer: way longer than most companies who migrate to GAAP.”

Examples? Private companies with details about how long their transitions took.

There is no meat(numbers) in the yearly report. If SAS wants to go public maybe they should be producing an annual report that has the look and feel of a public company.

The report is just marketing material. It makes people wonder how much more work remains for SAS to be GAAP compliant. How many years has SAS been working on GAAP? Answer: way longer than most companies who migrate to GAAP.

SAS says they want to sell/IPO but sure do not act that way.

24% growth on $1.00 is on 24 cents taking me to $1.24
Not impressive.

@cx+1jsetd4rb
If SAS is paying me to work a 35-hour week, the company must be getting good value for money. I haven't been laid off. Why would I leave? Anyone who knows me will tell you that I ask the same questions at work that I ask here. So... you never know, that might be me in the office next to you right now, or across the hall, not starting my own company or leaving to work for a public company. That is, if I'm the same person you replied to. If not, well, there are two of us. Maybe more.

@cp+1jsetd4rb So go start your own company or leave and work for a public company.

@c5+1jsetd4rb
"People need to understand" that the sort of people who want to work at a company that promises its customers "the power to know" are the same sort of people who want to see the numbers behind a statement like "24% growth in Viya sales".

People need to understand that the purposes and practices of using numbers in external communication and internal operations are inherently different.

The desire for truth and accuracy continues making good things happen in SAS! But you got to accept that business will not be an open book to everybody.

@c2+1jsetd4rb Uh oh. 2015 inflation guy is back.

@c1+1jsetd4rb
I know, right? Someone sure wants to push that first comment off the page as quickly as possible!

@bz+1jsetd4rb
Those are the same numbers that confirm TOR 2024 is ~65 percent TOR 2015 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Be careful what you wish for.

Dang, y’all. What flavor was the Kool-aid?

The secret numbers...but they're not secret if you know the secret hiding place. Uh-huh.
Still smells of "secret" to me.

As they say in the 12-step programs -- You are only as sick as your secrets.

“ The point of the example was to demonstrate that SAS is — after ten years! — still not stating revenues for Viya.”

They aren’t stating them externally or to you. Did you expect a personal email?
They also aren’t reporting numbers of SAS 9 or Viya 3.5 externally. So what?

The people that need to know do know.
The numbers are available if you work at SAs and know where to look.

“ SAS puts in their Annual Report only what they want people to know.”

Duh? They are a private company and can report whatever they want for now. But keep on filling on the blanks with your own numbers.

And the protestations that those were just sample numbers are disingenuous. They were intentionally low with the implied meaning that 24% percent of a low number is still a low number.

24% growth is 24% growth. You are all are just looking for ways to make it a negative thing.

“intentionally misleading”

Ridiculous. Who would intentionally mislead with round numbers?

“Fake and demonstrably wrong numbers?”

What is with you people? It was just an example.

That’s why @a6+1jsetd4rb used round numbers. They used $1,000,000. They could have used $1,000, or $1,000,000,000. It was just an example.

The point of the example was to demonstrate that SAS is — after ten years! — still not stating revenues for Viya.

And there’s good reason for that. SAS puts in their Annual Report only what they want people to know.

24% growth in Viya revenue maintains flat overall total revenue. That's like saying max flaps prevented a crash, as positive news.

bp+1jsetd4rb

The numbers you cited are not in the sane post that contains the verbiage you quoted. You are questioning the wrong poster.

@bd+1jsetd4rb I don’t think he/she really has to explain anything anyway. Even the word salad doesn’t negate the silliness of using fake and demonstrably wrong (if you work at SAS) numbers.

WTF does eating grass have to do with anything. That is literally word salad.

“24 percent, really??? A great example of telling the truth without including any numbers to add context. Such as stating the before/after Viya site count.”

So you think adding your own made up numbers is somehow better?

You stick by your 1,000,000 to 1,240,000 comment?

Serious questions

24 percent, really??? A great example of telling the truth without including any numbers to add context. Such as stating the before/after Viya site count.

Sadly, revenue remains stagnant. Ouch.

@b3+1jsetd4rb
You were in such a hurry to respond that you didn't math right. And you missed the point. And, at the risk of being offensive, what does that word salad ("bullsh-t intentionally super it even remotely close incredibly low numbers") even mean? Maybe you should take a break. Log off. Don't explain. Go touch grass.

@ar+1jsetd4rb The point was that demonstrating how 24% growth calculation works by using bullsh-t intentionally super it even remotely close incredibly low numbers is stupid and intentionally misleading.

@aj+1jsetd4rb Apparently you need examples; you calculated only 2.4%.

The point was that percentages don't show revenues. If Viya revenues were impressive, SAS would show them.

“ Hmm... we've had this conversation here before, but:
$1,000,000 > $1,240,000 = "24% growth in SAS Viya sales". Hardly impressive.”

And if those were the actual numbers you might have a point. But they are not and making sh-t up doesn’t make you seem smart.

$10,000,000,000 > $10,240,000,000 = 24% growth in Viya sales.
See how stupid that sounded? No one needed you to give examples of how to calculate 24% growth.

@OP+1jsetd4rb
Hmm... we've had this conversation here before, but:
$1,000,000 > $1,240,000 = "24% growth in SAS Viya sales". Hardly impressive. No word on actual revenue? Just "sales" and "growth"? In the absence of "revenue", it sounds like someone might be redefining the word "growth" in the context of "sales" to mean "sites" or "deals". So that could be 100 sites > 124 sites = "24% growth". Even less impressive. And what's the decline in SAS9 renewals? Don't say "none", but I'll bet it's not reported.