I often see news headlines - "Company A reported a loss of 40 billion", "Startup raised 100 billion" and in the comments everyone thinks that A will go bankrupt tomorrow, while the startup will conquer the world.
All you need to know about press releases and disclosed financial statements is that they are either presented as the company needs them, or they don't reflect reality at all and no one bothers.

Three examples:

1. Harvey Weinstein had an annual bonus as a percentage of profit, and the company was owned by Disney, which has a lot of money and can write off large losses. So what did Weinstein do to get big bonuses? The film was shot as usual, and then an assessment was made on the finished picture: they showed it to a focus group, held preview screenings, and if it was clear that the film was successful, they didn't release it immediately but waited for a pool of 5-10 successful films and released them in one year, while in another year they released all the failed films. Thus, in a bad year, Harvey received only a salary, and in a good year, he received huge percentages of profit. If everything were spread evenly, it would turn out that the company was highly unprofitable, which Disney realized 10 years later and closed Miramax. But in successful years, press releases were sent out, headlines touted how well the company was doing and what a genius Harvey was. It was beneficial for him, and the PR campaign was conducted on his orders. And we believed it.

2. Atlassian - a company that makes corporate project management software (Trello, Jira, Confluence). They have been unprofitable for 9 years, not just a little, but heavily, by 200-400 million. And investors are willing to tolerate losses for so long? No, it's very simple - they have a subscription model, i.e., it is paid for a year in advance, but the amount can be refunded during the subscription period, so it cannot be recorded as profit until the period ends, and by then it's all spent. So on paper, the company is unprofitable, but in reality, it covers all its expenses itself and even buys competitors. Why the guys don't want to restructure their reporting to be profitable is unclear.

3. Without specific names here, but you can see that Silicon Valley stars create educational courses and sell them, not by themselves, but through platforms. They are likely paid for creating the course and a percentage. This looks like a few tens of thousands of dollars. But why would a startup founder with giant investments and valuation need such small money? It's simple - big rounds are for the media, in reality, they have shares or options, but no cash, payouts are years away, and they need to live on something.

So don't look at others, the numbers that everyone promotes are usually like a magician's trick - they are what distracts, not where the coin comes from.