That's ... not really accurate or how an IPO/opening cross works. The point is immediate liquidity for the listing company while the initial investors hold the bag and more slowly sell shares according to market demand. Read on for details:

IPO price is decided between the company and the underwriters. Too high and there's risk to the underwriters/investors losing money facilitating the IPO. Too low and the company leaves money on the table. This process guarantees the company an immediate cash return of a specific dollar amount in return for the shares tendered.

Then you have the opening cross match that determines the initial *market* price based on pre-open, pending orders aka demand. Those orders get processed, the stock priced, and trading commences in a fraction of a second. A point of clarity: all tendered shares are NOT immediately available on the open market.

A company will price as high as they can, within the range that underwriting will allow for. It's not risk-free money for investors either - they can't just dump all their shares on the market post-IPO without tanking the price. There's a lot that goes into how deciding how many shares are held vs sold, when, and at what price. You may have underwriting that will help support pricing on an IPO with open large buy orders - to prevent a stock from falling below certain price targets. In the end it means those 'insiders' get paid to hold a much bigger nut when a company goes public.

There's a direct listing IPO, but it's much less common for reasons not worth getting into.

Reference: I work for one of the stock markets.

The M1 was a major change and a big win for Apple sales, true. Impressive? Certainly and it WAS a 'courage' moment for Apple. Revolutionary? I'll agree to disagree since ARM isn't exactly new and...4 generations in the rest of the industry is happily marching down it's own path still.

I agree that Apple tends to make big leaps on occasion ... but now their platforms are all mature and they're hurting for the next one. Look at the failed AVP.

I guess it does take some courage to outright defy a court order, but the really stupid kind. Apple knows it's riding a gravy train and there's many billions on the line - there's literally no amount of lawyering and even campaigning for legislation that wouldn't be worth it for them to overturn this. They may find that the maximum fines available to the courts are simply payable in perpetuity.

What's really at stake though is Apple's continued growth. Tech has stagnated. There last 3 or 4 iPhones have been largely identical. The M1/2/3/4/etc. progression is just incremental. There's no killer app for the masses that needs an "AI-Enabled" computer which can't be done faster in the cloud anyhow.

If Apple has to take this hit, and they SHOULD, there's really nowhere for them to make up the lost revenue.

Ugh, sorry to hear it! This is one of those things where the healthcare industry can't even get out of it's own way. Sometimes it's better todo things on the downlow than hope you check exactly the right boxes for some generic formula.

While most diets yo-yo because once the good behaviors stop, the bad ones often return worse as a 'reward'...GLP-1 drugs have the possibility of developing new behaviors and patterns. If you genuinely get used to eating less because clearing your plate is uncomfortable, you can develop new habits not out of sheer force of will but instead out of positive reinforcement. (i.e. not feeling sick from eating too much)

For many they break the compulsion aspect of eating, drinking, smoking, etc. and give you time to develop new habits that aren't destructive. I'd suggest giving it a try - worst case you maintain low-dose after weight loss. Seems like a pretty reasonable option for long-term health too.

Psh, like they'd spend good money on actual sugar.

HFCS though? I put that shit on (in) everything!

Tell me more about how little you understand the topic you're definitively posting about.

If you didn't pay stupid prices for these drugs, it's actually cheaper to take them and eat less. My dose costs ~$10/week and I definitely save more than that by eating and snacking less. Skipping a single appetizer or a couple snacks puts me net-positive.

If you're paying $100s/week then no...but the long term savings in healthcare is still strongly net-positive.

Muscle loss is likely due to diet changes, not the drugs. If you aren't getting enough protein you'll lose muscle even if strength training. For me, I focus my calorie intake on protein and let the carbs/fat happen as they do. A protein shake for a meal is perfectly satisfying/filling and the couple fries I have with dinner are more than enough carbs. I likely hover on the edge of ketosis but to no ill effect.

OTOH if you eat snacks, get full, and skip a proper meal with proteins then you'll be severely deficient and ... yeah lose muscle.

I've gained muscle on Tirzepatide.

I don't get people saying GLP-1 or GLP-1+GIP drugs make you shit yourself. Anyone claiming that clearly hasn't taken them.

The OPPOSITE effect is fairly common: constipation is a genuine risk and needs to be monitored or diet adjusted to avoid.

The costs are just collusion of drug companies and have nothing to do with production costs. If it didn't have the 'side effect' of reduced appetite and weight loss it'd be another mediocre diabetic drug that would likely be forgotten and abandoned.

For better or worse, drug labs are pretty easy to spin up these days and purity in the 99-99.5+ range is easily achievable. Grey market GLP1 drugs can be had for (checks provider) ~$400/10x60mg vial which works out to $2.5 per 2.5mg low-dose or $10 per 15mg max-dose. Add a few dollars for, shipping, BAC to mix, and syringes...but you're talking $10-15/weekly dose all-in.

So yah, it's a tragedy that people suffer from obesity and all the health implications that come with it over something that can be had for ~$500/year. Most people spend more on coffee.

Anecdotal but low/starter dose tirz killed my addiction to alcohol pretty much overnight without even thinking, caring, trying, or intending it. I tried several times prior to stop/limit drinking or replace it with weed and failed. Now? The craving and compulsion is just ... gone. While I've lost weight too, that happened after losing the urge to drink ... which honestly represented a lot of my excess calories.

Each their own, but when a lot of people are reporting a 'side effect' you often have something worth mention. Viagra was a failed drug except for it's most common side effect.

Citation required. I've read the same click-bait "news" stories and they provided no medical evidence to actually link the two. It was someone (unsure if it was even more than one) who was already a severely uncontrolled diabetic that experienced diabetic retinopathy. Even if true and directly causal, what's the rate of incidence? Reportedly 2% of Americans are taking GLP-1 drugs and they've found ... single-digit instances of blindness? That's a ~0.0001% occurrence and even ignoring correlation vs causality. You have a higher chance of being struck by lightning at 0.0065%.

Yes yes...tell us more about how "ethics" influence body weight. I don't often outright call people stupid in /. but this post certainly is.

You keep preaching calorie counting as the Won Twue Way and stuffing your fingers in your ears when anyone points out that you're wrong. It's cute, but childish and your post above is littered with nonsense, wholly unsubstantiated, claims.

How the body absorbs nutrients varies greatly from person to person. What an individuals resting metabolic rate is again varies enormously. Factor in forcing the body into ketogenesis and you've added yet another factor. Also, how many calories are burned during a particular exercise varies greatly from person to person.

Just because you blast mostly nonsense on /. doesn't mean there's any science and research behind it either. The truth is somewhere in-between, but definitely not "CICO" unless you're looking at closed-loop, perfectly efficient lab experiments.