Earlier quoted context omitted.
What were the other 2?
Twitter and Blogger obviously.
Oh I thought he meant Medium got 3/3 epic stories like this.
No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
261–270 of 783 posts
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could just publish it as a letter to the editor, no? Papers public random screeds all the time.
As Bezos states in his post, he already gets tons of crap from Trump and other idiots that he uses WaPo for personal ends (mainly because these other amoral characters couldn't believe themselves owning a newspaper and not using it as a personal propaganda outlet). He's wise to post this on a neutral platform and not give his enemies any more ammunition.
Sure, I don't think leaning on WaPo would have helped him here (and I did not suggest that). Plenty of other papers he doesn't own publish random letters to the editor.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#263So let me get this straight.. the owner(s) of the National Enquirer are doing this.. because they're worried about what, their journalistic credibility? Seriously? After having published the Enquirer for decades already? Alternately, maybe some people just like to be bullies.
It is possibly due to pressure from Saudi Arabia. MBS was pissed that WP is going after him after killing of Khashoggi. Enquirer (and Pecker) are quite close to MBS, they ran a cover story on him (how awesome he is).
It could be a bigger story than it seems at the moment.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#264So let me get this straight.. the owner(s) of the National Enquirer are doing this.. because they're worried about what, their journalistic credibility? Seriously? After having published the Enquirer for decades already? Alternately, maybe some people just like to be bullies.
It is possibly due to pressure from Saudi Arabia. MBS was pissed that WP is going after him after killing of Khashoggi. Enquirer (and Pecker) are quite close to MBS, they ran a cover story on him (how awesome he is). It could be a bigger story than it seems at the moment.
How can they act above national security interest? Don't they realize the security institutions would destroy them?
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
If his wife is divorcing him because he's cheating on her, the divorce was inevitable anyway.
Timestamps on the photos could show Bezos’ affair taking place earlier than previously stated, which would definitely affect a divorce trial.
Washington State is a “no fault” divorce state, so I would guess that the court wouldn't care about who was cheating on who when.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be real. He earned much more than half.
His wife supported him after he left his IB job to start Amazon. Amazon would not be without her in all probability. I argue Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-geni...
Not being sarcastic, but support for 20 years, is a bit far fetched. At some point after inception, Amazon was successful, even before it went public.
So are you saying Amazon rose in value because Jeff had the undying support of his wife?
I would say the support helped Jeff until the company was self-sustaining and successful. Of course, without the initial support of his wife, Amazon would not have started in the first place, or perhaps, started a bit late or grow a bit slowly. Think of the counter argument. If Jeff's wife was vehemently against it, Jeff did not start any company, and then after 20 years she divorced him, she would still get a share of his money. Do lawyers then argue that since she did not support him in his endeavors, she ought to bear some of his opportunity cost?
Day to day operations were taken care of by Jeff. Extremely difficult decisions, ones that make or break a company were taken by Jeff. Hiring and firing decisions were taken by Jeff. Vision for the company originated with and sustained by Jeff.
I would not credit the wife with half of everything. Difficult to put a number to the situation. It's just sad.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#267At some point in the future we will look back at this administration and marvel at the magnitude of criminal activities surrounding this president.
There is enough crime to marvel at right now.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeff Bezos has mentioned before that he tries to make big decisions from a “regret minimization framework”.
The "Principle of Least Regret" is an excellent way to make decisions, particularly binary ones: Given a choice between action X and action Y, and given all the facts and experience and self-knowledge currently at one's disposal, which option will you look back on in future with fewer/lesser regrets? You then commit to the path that you currently judge minimises your future contrition. The very literal minded will ta…
Your comment reminded me of the film Arrival;
Where at the end once the mc has the new ability, she can see her painful future, and yet she accepts it because, well, what can you do about predestination? Had me thinking, if an individual could perceive time non-linearly, would they see their future folly, and yet perform the same mistakes, at peace with their actions?
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
His wife supported him after he left his IB job to start Amazon. Amazon would not be without her in all probability. I argue Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-geni...
Not being sarcastic, but support for 20 years, is a bit far fetched. At some point after inception, Amazon was successful, even before it went public. So are you saying Amazon rose in value because Jeff had the undying support of his wife? I would say the support helped Jeff until the company was self-sustaining and successful. Of course, without the initial support of his wife, Amazon would not have started in the f…
I don't want this thread to devolve needlessly; in summary:
I treat my wife like my cofounder with an equal share of equity. I wouldn't let my cofounder take anything less than half of the total value of the business if a liquidation/separation/liquidity event occurred, so why would I treat my spousal relationship differently considering the work a relationship requires? If you're concerned about your partner entitled to half as not being equitable, you might consider your partner selection before the division of equity.
This applies whether I'm worth a thousand dollars, or a billion dollars.
EDIT: Was I being judgemental? It was intended more as "Choose Wisely" from Indiana Jones. As you mention sytelus, most of success is luck, but you can make every effort to pick the right partner.
Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I'm curious - is this considered blackmail if the object isn't money?
It only needs to be “something of value”... often money, but I think most reasonable people can see the potential value of the requested statement from Jeff Bezos. Now if AMI wanted you or I to say those statements I’m not sure how valuable they’d be.
To elaborate, "something of value" is the language from the federal law. Under Washington state law, blackmail explicitly includes demands for services.
I would think that the demand for a public statement would qualify, however, I'm not a lawyer, and this case is unusual enough that I would not be confident in my personal interpretation of the law.