81–90 of 144 posts
match.com: we would like to buy tinder.
tinder: for how much?
match.com: we will offer you our stock in exchange for yours at a fair valuation.
tinder: okay!
match: alrighty accountants, round down on everything and use the methodologies that provide tinder with the lowest valuation.
tinder: not fair!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're right. Being civil doesn't pay dividends unless most other people are civil too too, and if incivility is punished. Neither of those things are true, generally, right now, so being civil just makes you look weak. C'est la vie.
Real strength is in doing the right thing even when it is inconvenient to your image.
Or, more concisely, hate the game, not the player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Match might have to find a model besides "buy the latest popular matchmaking firm"?
IIRC, they own one of the few online dating sites that actually generates a profit: match.com. All of their other properties, particularly Tinder and OkCupid, are basically meant to get younger people hooked so that they will eventually convert to paying for Match.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is their target audience?
The judge hearing the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you ELI5 for me, because I don't understand this at all.
Tinder was a match.com spinoff startup and they gave the founders some stock and money... tinder did well and then when they re-acquired the company they did so at a valuation that allegedly improperly compensated some of the shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real strength is in doing the right thing even when it is inconvenient to your image.
Nah, not really. Real morality maybe. But there are environments where "doing the right thing" will simply fuck you. (I guess you could argue if you were _really_ really strong, you could do the right thing and survive. But that's almost tautological. The point is, the environment you're in may force you to make the choice of "do things you would rather not" or "fail".) Or, more concisely, hate the game, not the play…
I'm not perfect, far from it, but I try to fail graciously before I choose to stray from doing the right thing.
That said, I absolutely do recognize that that is a luxury that not everyone has given their situation. However, I do think that some use that to justify not having to do the right thing in cases where that isn't actually true, and that at least striving to always do right, but sometimes failing to do the right thing due to circumstances is a better approach in the long term versus minmaxing immediate returns because doing the right thing is inconvenient.
Or I'm hopelessly naive.
Or somewhere between those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge hearing the case.
If I were a judge, I'd only have a slightly more negative or skeptical attitude towards IAC/Match as a result of that PR statement, at best. I'm not buying the wisdom yet. Anyone have something more convincing? Or am I wrong about most judge's mindsets? Don't judges 'see through' PR? Isn't their job about facts, not being influenced by rhetoric? Are our judges crap? BTW, this is one reason why AI ought to assist judg…
Isn't it a bigger issue that even if people agree on the facts, the law can be mushy with concepts like "reasonable" such that two people can reasonably disagree on what is reasonable given the same facts?