I don't think that's the conclusion of the paper you linked, although there are papers suggesting that ADHD and autism are essentially subtypes of a single overarching disorder.
The more common view is that because prevalence of attentional deficit in autism is so high, it's rare to find someone with autism who isn't also able to fit an ADHD diagnosis. This might mean a shared common ancestor as it were, or perhaps autism has attentional deficit as an intrinsic part of the disorder rather than people with autism also often having ADHD.
The other direction is the amount of people who have ADHD who also have autism. In this case, while the overlap is higher than the general population, it is easy to find people with ADHD who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for autism.
Put more simply, people with ADHD aren't necessarily autistic, but people with autism are usually ADHD.
It does depreciate, usually. It's the land underneath that appreciates in value.
Occasionally if you get unusual spikes in building materials and labour costs then the house itself can appreciate in value because it costs more to replace it, but that's rare enough.
> Cloudflare is an outlier because the company doesn't actually make money at present; their past three annual statements show net losses in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Their free cashflow is high; they're choosing not to report a profit. I don't think it's useful/accurate to say they don't make money.
Don't get me wrong, they may be doing a layoff to boost margins or enter GAAP profitability but the company revenue exceeds its operating cost by quite a bit.
> First quarter revenue totaled $639.8 million, representing an increase of 34% year-over-year
So they're growing 34% annually.
> Free cash flow was $84.1 million, or 13% of revenue, compared to $52.9 million, or 11% of revenue, in the first quarter of 2025.
Cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale securities were $4,163.9 million as of March 31, 2026.
...and they have $84 million free cash flow in one quarter, and it's consistently pretty good cashflow.
And they have $4b of cash or cash equivalents stockpiled. It seems pretty healthy to me.
It's significantly more efficient to provide services to compact towns than sprawled towns, so I'm not sure this registers to me as a downside.
It's pretty common for small sprawled towns to struggle to keep up with maintenance of roads/water/power, which is less of an issue with compact towns.
The lack of sprawl is also a consequence of how mountainous the country is. While not as bad as a lot of western sprawl, the areas of Japan that are a bit wider and less populated do have an element of car dependent sprawl to them. Then of course the villages that aren't covered by the train network and aren't boxed in by mountains have a pretty similar relationship to cars as a small western town.
Where I think the US and Australia both struggle is trying to make the car work in dense cities as populations grow. We do actually have pretty dense cities in Aus, yet cannot give up the car.
Hence the comment you replied to saying "they print cash". You'll find a lot of big companies work this way: high free cashflow, because they earn a lot more than they spend, but then the spare cash is either reinvested or paid out via share buybacks. Declaring a profit isn't advantageous compared to the other options available.
This is a pretty surface level analysis; Atlassian also has stock buybacks of billions of dollars each year. It's an intentional choice to not declare a profit and pay a dividend, and instead to reinvest in acquisitions and pay shareholders via stock buybacks.
You'll find it much more interesting to look at metrics like free cashflow, which is a better indicator as to whether the company is generating more cash during operations than it spends. This is a lot closer to the layman's idea of profit, and in a small business like a restaurant or single store it's often analogous to profit. In publicly traded companies, net profit and loss are borderline meaningless.
Atlassian also issues billions worth of RSUs to employees every year. The buybacks are necessary to offset that. Shareholders are getting nothing out of it, and the fact that the stock price has been in freefall for years despite the buybacks shows that.
Software companies hid behind “free cash flow” and “YoY revenue growth” and “non-GAAP profit” for years in the zero interest world. Now that the heat has turned up a notch investors can see what I said before - most of these companies are wildly overstaffed and addicted to spending.
The only reason it’s buying back the stock is because the price has been destroyed by the company’s underperformance. Also yes buybacks will reduce profit but an unprofitable company doing buybacks is not a healthy one.
Agree with the above general assessment that this is a company doing layoffs to address years of bad decisions and underperformance, and the broader issue of SaaS valuations as folks question valuations there. Just another case of “AI” as a PR puff excuse to avoid simply admitting this is about correcting prior bad management decisions.
TIL that 20-30% revenue growth year over year is underperforming.
Atlassian does >$1B/year in free cash flow. the GAAP losses are almost entirely stock-based comp, which is non-cash. the buyback exists specifically to offset that dilution.
> buybacks will reduce profit
wrong. its a balance sheet transaction. cash goes down, shares go down.
There is no connection between profits and dividends, some monstrously profitable companies pay little to no dividends and return money to shareholders via buybacks. The act of doing an acquisition by itself also does not affect profits.
The reason Atlassian doesn't "declare a profit" is that they are not profitable - they pay a lot with SBC, thus diluting shareholders year after year and not returning anything.
You don't need to argue it out with HN, if you want to negotiate landlords generally are happy to at least consider it. I've paid rent as an annual lump sum before.
The more common view is that because prevalence of attentional deficit in autism is so high, it's rare to find someone with autism who isn't also able to fit an ADHD diagnosis. This might mean a shared common ancestor as it were, or perhaps autism has attentional deficit as an intrinsic part of the disorder rather than people with autism also often having ADHD.
The other direction is the amount of people who have ADHD who also have autism. In this case, while the overlap is higher than the general population, it is easy to find people with ADHD who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for autism.
Put more simply, people with ADHD aren't necessarily autistic, but people with autism are usually ADHD.
reply