andrew_lettuce
Joined 112 karma
- andrew_lettuceNot a lawyer but I'd be interested to know if you can sue an end user who uses AI ... In the past you could for using tools, but if AI has autonomy based solely on a prompt that might even open up free speech defenses
- Comments all act like Disney is giving them $1B, but they are essentially producing unlimited Disney IP content through OpenAI, and get any value boost on their ownership investment, and get the Disney stock bounce from the deal coverage. I don't really like the deal on the face value of what we know, but will admit there is huge potentially upside and it's very cheap relative to a lot of other company AI "strategies"
- If just the news of the deal boosts Disney stock enough to pay for the deal, then yes. Or if it boosts OpenAI valuation because they now have Disney IP enough to pay off on Disney's investment, it is basically Disney producing content indirectly.
- That's still whack-a-mole though, just because they're rolling out new virus definitions quicker doesn't do anything to prevent zero day exploits
- Almost like this is not about the value of the deal, but the payoff to both sides from the headlines?
- Counter example: they sell their dollar hotdog and pop right at the front!
- I say this as someone who admires their business model and how they treat customers & employees: your typical Costco experience is drive to the suburbs, spend $500 and load up your car with nice to have food products and discretionary purchases. Poorer people cannot do any of these things.
- This is true, but a valuable - and damning - observation that this variation in business model, that seems to be both decent and profitable, is so rare
- Red Lobster?
- PE puts very little of their own money into the deal though, while they own it they don't buy it. They use incredibly high leverage and often saddle the company with monstrous debt, then loot the assets to pay the interest and take management fees while doing all this. Red lobster is a great recent example. They sold off all the real estate, then had stores lease it back, turning profitable locations into losers. They often do the same thing with manufacturing, goodwill, brandnames and sales channels.
Think of this like an oil well. If you pump off all the gas, you depressurize the reservoir and can never get the oil. You need to slow your production to get the oil first, but private equity is happy to skim the cream and leave the milk to spoil.
- Because a PE fund is at most a seven year timeline, and everybody knows it. There is absolutely no incentive to add value beyond the next sale, and often you only need to add the perception of value. To quote my CTO of a PE owned company: "we want to make it look like we're on the road to <big investment in strategic roadmap>", not actually accomplish it
- How the hell does consolidation, monopolization, externalizing costs and extreme leverage "clear the room for new businesses"?
Even on HN playing the role of PE apologist is not going to fly ...
- Most people would say that extracting wealth and concentrating it into an ever shrinking group of elites is making the world worse. They do this both from the companies you and I might work for, but more importantly from the markets that have no defenses.
- They could do this, but there's not enough targets of this type for the money invested in the sector. They've also proven to not have the advertised & applicable expertise to run companies any more efficiently than current management. Nostalgia had nothing to do with it unless that's one of the company's assets. I've been inside on three PE acquisitions, and 5 sales by PE to new funds. The playbook was the same for them all: predictable, decent cash flow, cut expenses, grow enterprise sales, sell on before long term cracks from lack of strategic investment showed. If anything they accelerated the decline of healthy going concerns, but at each sale the insiders did great.
- That's not true at all! Funds often look for mature companies with predictable cash flow. They can make returns while also squeezing margins under the illusion of expertise and economies of scale and seek to the next fund for a multiple. They're an alternative to the massive headache of going public and getting a liquidity event, not typically the model for your weak and dysfunctional company.
- 30 for a company that doesn't pay anything and may never pay off at all is crazy in my book, so as a best case scenario it's an obvious hard pass.
- This isn't really true. IPOs provide access to much more money in a very short time frame. They also allow parties involved to make huge coin before, during and immediately after the process.
- When you add in money managed on behalf of retail investors it gets big fast, thinking indexed funds, pensions etc. they are not immune, and ETFs by definition need to participate
- I think there's a fundamental difference between software with strong opinions and software that fights and tricks you. I definitely use some applications "wrong" but I recognize and accept that's on me. The programs don't really care, but Windows feels like a lawn mower that hates me, or Larry Ellison.
- Way to move the goalposts. The argument is not about the usefulness, it's about baked-in on by default features for what are obvious extension workflows. About the only marketing advantage FF has at this point is customizable and lack of dirty tricks. Mozilla seems confusingly desperate to sell out here asap