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

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 424 posts

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#411

Post by willio58 »

ecshafer wrote: post #390
willio58 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larry Ellison is also a very public supporter of Israel and the IDF, as recently as a few months ago speaking in support of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

What does this have to do with anything?

It’s something I recently learned and has informed the way I think about him and his family. Seems others have appreciated the knowledge too.

As a Jew myself, I think the actions of Israel over the past 2 years are clearly ethnic cleansing and I believe anyone who supports that effort should be exposed for doing so.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#412

Post by malcolmgreaves »

digitaltrees wrote: post #296

When did silicon valley shift from "making the world a better place through disintermediation of relational data structures" to "own the means of production, control all government and bring back public hanging for masculine leadership"? Are they immature enough to think that people will just accept this without pushback? This is not the SV I believed in, and it won't end well for anyone.

When did SV ever actually do what you're claiming? Need to see some evidence of this claim before taking it as true.

From my observations, SV just had good marketing and PR during the 2000s - 2010s.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#413

Post by burnte »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69
burnte wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Breakup fes are for when the buyer backs out or theere are external forces that prevent the merger. You can also have a breakup fee if the buyee wants out but that's a different thing. In this case it's Paramount saying "we'll up out government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go through.

> in this case it's Paramount saying "we'll up out government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go through No. Paramount has nothing to do with these numbers, which both come from the Plan of Merger among Netflix, Warner and others [1]. Paramount's bid constitutes an Acquisition Proposal under § 6.2(c). It is a "proposal, offer or indication of inte…

I assure you that Paramount has everything to do with things Paramount does, especially when it comes to purchasing prices and the numbers used to represent prices. Paramount is intimately involved with their own business, sometimes too involved.

This article is relating to Paramount's continued attempt to purchase WB despite Netflix announcing a deal with WB.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#414

Post by malcolmgreaves »

digitaltrees wrote: post #327
cyclecount wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably sometime around the early 1800s Malcolm Harris wrote a book “Palo Alto” about how this culture took root in SV long before it was called Silicon Valley: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/10/palo-alto-book...

I don’t agree with this at all when you look at how much founder reinvestment in other younger founders has driven the ecosystem over generations.

Are a few hand-picked winners from VCs hand-picking the next generation's winners _actually_ creating any sort of social prosperity?

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#415

Post by _heimdall »

eddd-ddde wrote: post #377
_heimdall wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also take issue with the electoral college system, but to claim that a representative democracy is not a democracy based on the intermediary representation seems like a fairly hollow concern. My bigger issue with regards to how democratic we are would be more related to campaign finance laws, corruption, and the immense power wielded by those in charge that can be pointed at political challengers if the politician…

The electoral college system wouldn't be nearly as bad of a system if you couldn't just rearrange some borders and suddenly change the results.

Unless I'm mistaken, electoral college representatives are assigned based on state borders and individual state laws - usually either winner take all or proportional. The electoral college itself can't be gerrymandered in the same way congress can.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#416

Post by dragonwriter »

_heimdall wrote: post #415
eddd-ddde wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college system wouldn't be nearly as bad of a system if you couldn't just rearrange some borders and suddenly change the results.

Unless I'm mistaken, electoral college representatives are assigned based on state borders and individual state laws - usually either winner take all or proportional. The electoral college itself can't be gerrymandered in the same way congress can.

Electoral college representatives are currently elected on a statewide winner-take-all basis except Maine and Nebraska, each of which assign two electors (corresponding to the votes due to two Senate seats each state gets) based on the statewide winner while assigning the other electors based on the winner in each Congressional district.

So, in those states only, electoral votes can be gerrymandered in exactly the same was as Congressional seats, because they are exactly the same districts. (Of course, both states are small enough that the gerrymandering opportunities are fairly limited, and would have limited impact on Presidentual elections, as Maine has only two CDs and Nebraska only 3.)

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#417

Post by JumpCrisscross »

burnte wrote: post #413
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in this case it's Paramount saying "we'll up out government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go through No. Paramount has nothing to do with these numbers, which both come from the Plan of Merger among Netflix, Warner and others [1]. Paramount's bid constitutes an Acquisition Proposal under § 6.2(c). It is a "proposal, offer or indication of inte…

I assure you that Paramount has everything to do with things Paramount does, especially when it comes to purchasing prices and the numbers used to represent prices. Paramount is intimately involved with their own business, sometimes too involved. This article is relating to Paramount's continued attempt to purchase WB despite Netflix announcing a deal with WB.

> Paramount has everything to do with things Paramount does

But not with things it does not. The numbers you quoted are not Paramount’s. (Though that is orthogonal to you being wrong on Warner owing Netflix a break-up fee if Paramount wins.)

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#418

Post by hollerith »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #271
hollerith wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>large corporations whose main goal is to make you addicted to their product and extract the maximal amount of money. I wasted thousands of hours in the 1990s reading Usenet. The part of Usenet I used (i.e., not the binary newsgroups) never made anyone any money and was never intended to make money by the people who built and administered it. The software I used to read Usenet, namely Wayne Davison's trn, was likewis…

You raise a good point, addictive technology is not necessarily for profit. The difference is that being addicted to a decentralized technology means that no one actor can control you. Usenet was a distributed system with a distributed network of control. The analog I would say is being addicted to Chess, which is decentralized activity.

The fact that it was a distributed system, impossible for any single entity to control, didn't AFAICT ameliorate or moderate the intensity or the duration of my compulsive over-consumption of Usenet.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#419

Post by rfwhyte »

digitaltrees wrote: post #294
renegade-otter wrote: post #275

Jared Kushner's firm? I am pretty sure about who is going to win....

the fact that this is credible should scare every entrepreneur. If you cant compete on an even playing field because some people have direct government involvement in tipping the scales we are neither a free market economy nor a democracy.

The US has never really been either. At its core, the US has always been an oligarchy with the veneer of democracy to keep the pleebs in check.

Any country that has only ever really been able to choose one of two political parties who both represent the interests of wealthy elites above all else can't really call itself a "Democracy."

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#420

Post by cornhole »

nake89 wrote: post #303
dabockster wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That, plus fewer studios mean less creativity goes to the mainstream. If you thought AI slop was bad, go re-watch Star Wars Episode 8.

Me and my wife were Star Wars fans. The last Star Wars media we watched was episode 8. I almost walked out the theater.

my biggest problem with episode 8 was that they freed the camels but not the camel jockey slave children
Post reply on HN