71–80 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that everyone else is missing? To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.
Can’t you replace a lot of Hollywood with AI now? What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're buying control of narrative on issues they care about; the history of media is mostly that. Newspapers were kind of invented for that reason. Our ideas of ethics in journalism are fairly modern.
Indeed Edgar Allan Poe had a thing or two to say about newspapers. https://poestories.com/quotes.php (and scroll down a bit). > “We should bear in mind that, in general, it is the object of our newspapers rather to create a sensation — to make a point — than to further the cause of truth.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that everyone else is missing? To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.
Can’t you replace a lot of Hollywood with AI now? What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is because Netflix gets money from subscriptions, which is a very different revenue model from traditional Hollywood. But again, completely a guess
I am under the impression traditional Hollywood also got much of its money from subscriptions, it just happened to pass through a middleman known as the cable or satellite TV company. Hence the constant threats of not being able to watch so and so channel due to contract dispute of "carriage fees" or whatever they called the amount per subscriber that a cable/satellite TV company paid Warner Bros/Disney/etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legitimate question (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just ignorant): why? Linux is just as free (or free-er), and it's a ton better supported: why would these major companies not use it?
FreeBSD's kernel is smaller and more cohesive than Linux's. The whole OS (kernel and userland) is developed as a single project, whereas Linux is just a kernel with a massive and fragmented contributor base. When you need to make deep cross-cutting changes, like modifying how sendfile interacts with TLS interacts with the TCP stack interacts with the NIC driver, that's way easier in a smaller, coherent codebase. Netf…
GPL2 would've let them do that just fine as long as they didn't distribute the Linux kernel to someone else.
AGPL was invented to close that "gap".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone knows why this purchase was made you should say what you're talking about because I for one have no idea.
He's probably talking about this: https://www.972mag.com/ellisons-paramount-tiktok-israel-medi...
This is the same as acquiring the Washington Post or Twitter, right? It's more about media control than any classic business case. Once you start meddling with the money machine it's not just Net Profit = Revenue – All Expenses (COGS + Operating Expenses + Interest + Taxes)
Netflix's deal included spinning off the news networks. If the Ellisons just wanted that, they could have had that for a considerably more digestible price point. They genuinely want Harry Potter and the Sopranos, too.
Riefenstahl wasn't a journalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that everyone else is missing? To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.
Can’t you replace a lot of Hollywood with AI now? What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich people don't buy media companies because this is the best business in the world. Quite the opposite, most media companies are mediocre or lose money. They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties.
> They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties Bezos bought the Post for clout. Ellison (and his investors) are buying Warner Brothers first and foremost to make money.