claiming to have customers you don’t actually have so vocally that they have to sue you to get their names out of your mouth should be a death knell on its own, but the whole “pretending their already-expired three-month trial contract is still in effect for the full year” is a great way to find yourself pulling a Sam Bankman-Fried, except that you don’t have a side company to pull $$$ from to cover your tracks
The investors read “11x, the company’s, revenue is 10 million” but what they missed was that the correct reading was “11 x [the company’s revenue] is 10 million”, so the actual revenue is less than a million. Easy mistake to make! Better luck next time investors!
this headline though… awful grammar
Nah, that’s regular English. Plain sometimes hard to read English.
Am I having a stroke or does that title just not make sense?
The headline is a bit of a crash blossom, but if you read the article, the comments in this thread, or even the title itself carefully enough, you should be able to parse it. If not, I’ll help:
A startup company named “11x”, whose business model is AI sales, claims to have customers for its software (which incidentally doesn’t work), who in fact are not their customers.
