Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#171

Post by nicholasbraker »

cylinder714 wrote: post #72
JimtheCoder wrote: post #31

Isn't Travis AFB for transport planes and tankers? This isn't like someone is buying land beside Groom Lake or Skunkworks...

Yes, and it's also the home of E6-B Mercury "TACAMO" communications aircraft operated by the U.S. Navy: https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/milita... This unit pretty much represents the last remaining Navy presence in the Bay Area. Ironic, given the history of the Navy there, beginning with the establishment of the shipyard on Mare Island before the Civil War, and the first Navy radio station on th…

But they only have a small detachment there. The main E-6B/TACAMO stuff is at Tinker AFB Oklahoma

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#172

Post by anigbrowl »

comfypotato wrote: post #160
anigbrowl wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. I can ask for what I want in a negotiation and accept or reject counter-offers, as can my counterparty. I've never set out to deceive someone in such a situation. I don't know why you're trying to equate Disney with some downtrodden minority, but it's not very persuasive.

The laws are in place in part because of discrimination. It happens to be Disney in this case. You confirmed that you’re dishonest by omission in your example. The fact that a counteroffer exists shows that it’s not implied you were forthwith with the price/value. Making/receiving a counteroffer implies that there was deceit, it’s just culturally acceptable deceit. If negotiations were completely honest, there would…

Logic is not your strong point.

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#173

Post by comfypotato »

anigbrowl wrote: post #172
comfypotato wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws are in place in part because of discrimination. It happens to be Disney in this case. You confirmed that you’re dishonest by omission in your example. The fact that a counteroffer exists shows that it’s not implied you were forthwith with the price/value. Making/receiving a counteroffer implies that there was deceit, it’s just culturally acceptable deceit. If negotiations were completely honest, there would…

Logic is not your strong point.

I only engaged you out of an interest in opening and expanding my viewpoint. (Just stating my perspective with no intention of offending:) I went into this under the assumption that you are jealous of rich folk and have a misplaced sense of entitlement. You’ve failed to change my mind. I’m not saying that’s necessarily true, please don’t be offended; you’ve just done nothing to convince me otherwise and’ve left me with a stronger sense that I’m correct. Consider that, from the standpoint of opposing your argument, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

That being said, my views aren’t your problem. I’m asking for help understanding an alternative look on things and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t immature.

You’ve done nothing to back up your stance. By all means, feel free to provide a breakdown of your argument in the context of my point regarding deceit. I’m genuinely interested. The discrimination aspect of the discussion could use some research and, ultimately, is only a sideshow to the concept of dishonesty in business (and can be disregarded). As far as the logic of the “deceit” portion, there is a leap of faith in extending the deceit of basic haggling/negotiation to hiding one’s identity. As I said before, if we differ in this belief, there’s no reconciling. Otherwise, my logic is rock solid.

To clarify my point with anecdote: I recently negotiated the purchase of a car; at no point did I practice deceit. I simply stated the price I was looking for and then negotiated to lower the price by pitting sellers against each other. Regarding deceit, I’m referring to what is more along the lines of “haggling” — an attempt is made to get a better deal on a purchase/sale than the bottom line of what you are willing to offer. This haggling would be present in Disney’s purchase of the land where there are no other current buyers for the seller to pit against Disney.

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#174

Post by vardump »

jeffbee wrote: post #57
maxlamb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would then want to lease land for infrastructure right next to an air force base when there is lots of land further out?

Because it's windy AF and there are already large amounts of transmission lines. Look at all these windmills. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.141376,-121.8339739,17582m/d... Also "near Travis AFB" is being used to mean that Travis is in Solano County and most of this property is also in Solano County. https://app.regrid.com/us/94585#b=none&o=FLANNERY+ASSOCIATES...

Wouldn't those wind turbines partially blind AFB radars?

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#175

Post by Supermancho »

1letterunixname wrote: post #165
Supermancho wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that the land is for housing? Notably, Irvine California successfully transitioned from being an Army Base town (very large military blimps, etc) to a thriving city. A jewel of southern california.

"Thriving" if one considers an Orwellian and totalitarian worldview similar to that of Singapore to be a viable and humane philosophy.

I have experience with the Irvine Company as well. There were decades where they were not in control of the city. Before Blizzard, before Google.

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#176

Post by mistermann »

nonameiguess wrote: post #94
mistermann wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if this is a genuine risk to be concerned about (as was the Cuban Missile Crisis), then why[1] are similar concerns out of Russia "not objective/logical/valid"? [1] No "correct by definition " memes, please. Imagine that you are writing code and thus have to be logical, exhaustively if you want to achieve correctness.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes, that is…

> I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair.

Oh, I understand: it is that Westerners believe that what is mandatory for us is optional for others.

> We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert.

Right: regional security for us, but not for you.

> When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too."

Yes it is, because it illustrates hypocrisy, thus is a gotcha.

> Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.

Right, but our politicians and media lie about what is going on, and lots of people believe them so now we have a mess on our hands.

Re: 'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

#177

Post by johngladtj »

Loquebantur wrote: post #102
johngladtj wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insider Trading is just fine.

No, it's really not. If it were, shell games would be great as well? One like the other is simply fraud. You exploit others' lack of insight. Doing so is unethical due to the implications it would have on a societal level if it were condoned. In particular, you likely imagine yourself regularly ending up on the better end of the bargain. You are wildly mistaken.

Insider Trading is just fine because it allows the market to function.

If you don't want to participate in it you don't have to, but why should other suffer because of your moral hangups about other people making money?

Post reply on HN