Couldn't agree more. Spent the evening reading though some of their work, and it's all so... fun. Just exploring fun and potentially useful ideas not restricted to what tools already exist (which seems to be the case much of the time)
I think it’s a neat idea (maybe because I was talking over ow to do something similar in Python, specifically for financial analysis). Definitely feels like an early stage, but I would love to see where it goes.
Well the thinking by google has surely been that Apple Search (iSearch?) would be competitive if Apple percieved it would be in their interest to build it / work with another partner. It's not impossible that someone else would build a good / better tool. Since all these tools also significantly improve with use and feedback, switching the default would probably have a massive impact
Yes, humans operate similarly. We gain knowledge through learning and assimilation of experiences. But there is a cost associated with each new input, in one form or another. You can read and reproduce the NYT articles or their content and build based on what you have learned. But aside from piracy, you have to somehow pay a cost associated with access (ads, subscriptions etc). The LLM does not do so in an equal way.
Well if the company goes bankrupt, theoretically other companies can buy e.g. 3M's patents / processes / subsidiaries and continue their production. THe company isn't unprofitable, so it would be sold off in parts and the proceeds of the sale (theoretically) would go towards settling lawsuits.
Unlikely though. Nobody would want to buy the company whole as that would include all of this liability. Selling of the individual parts to raise funds for paying the debts of the unsold parts of the business entering bankruptcy seems like the only way to go
I think maybe we're confusing terms here. Breaking up a company normally means separated into smaller existing companies. If you buy 3m's candy bar division, you still might be on the hook for the forever chemicals the candy shop dumped in the river.
If you're just talking about dissolving a company and selling off the tangible assets, not selling off functional business units then I agree, liability doesn't follow material Goods. This generally isn't considered breaking up a company.
Breaking up a large company into smaller ones during bankruptcy does not by default absolve the smaller companies of liability.
Courts can add bankruptcy settlement terms that absolve a company of liability moving forward, but these can be applied to the company at all as a whole or the smaller businesses if it is broken up.
What statute or case law supports this distinction between material goods and business units?
It seems reasonable to me that you could absolutely purchase a business unit from a bankrupt company without any associated liabilities. Of course, you'd pay the full price for it (as compared to the discount you'd be able to negotiate if you accepted liabilities). And, of course, the proceeds of the sale would go to the creditors before the shareholders.
I am not a lawyer, but here is a decent summary [1]. The legal term you would be looking for is "successor liability".
Liability can be servered from a operational buisness unit, but it basically requires the court intervention to formalize the seperation. Liability follows the functional business so that sale can't be used to evade liability.
Imagine if this wasnt the case. 3M could take on 100B debt, sell the bussness & assets to "4M" , leaving "3M" with no funds or assets for the creditors to go after.
I didn't say it removed the liability of the company. It just means that the company that is left after selling off its profitable assets has the burden of the liability but with nothing but literal toxic assets. They can use the proceeds of the sales to start paying down the debts.
The assets sold would obviously not be the toxic assets.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you said the company would be sold off in individual parts to pay the debt.
My point is that selling it off as a complete company or mini companies doesn't really impact the liability. Both would be possible. What matters from a debt or liability perspective is the terms of the settlement.
In reality, the company is probably worth more as a single entity, sorry I wouldn't be surprised if it stays that way. That would maximize the recovery of damages and repayment of debt.
You sell of the formulas for scotch tape, and maybe the factories that make it as long as it is sequestered from the PFAS type stuff. You sell of the audio tape/VHS factories (haha). You sell off the patents/copyrights for all of that stuff as well. Those are the salable parts.
My point is that the whole thing is sellable. Propbably with a new stock offering for the whole company as a single entity.
If there is a huge judgement larger than the market cap, the most likely oputcome would be chapter 11 bankruptcy wiping out the investors, and the company moving forward as a single entity with a new ticker and new investors
This is the best of all worlds because it maximises the money recovered for damages and debtors.
They are still processing withdrawals as smoothly as ever, despite the lawsuits and judgment. Their tokens are trading at parity. They have seen huge outflows, and haven't faltered in the slightest.
IPO doesn't have to mean ads, though. There are other ways to monetize a user base and to generate money based off of a 'community'. They're just ways that require more time, more concerted effort and planning to execute.
Many platforms have recently shown how you can monitize an audience without ads. It's weird to me that Reddit hasn't pursued something like that.
Discord and Twitch have a funding model that would probably work great for Reddit. Allow users to pay a small fee to upgrade their subscription to a subreddit - maybe $1.50/mo per sub or $15/mo for all subs. The upgrade includes access to special emojis for the sub, a special flair or re-colored username, and no ads on the upgraded sub. A portion of the money would go towards funding moderation for the sub, and Reddit could pocket the rest.
The irony is that Reddit already has this feature, but that goes to show how poorly they market it. They also sell NFT avatars (though cleverly, not describing them as NFTs in the UI)
> A portion of the money would go towards funding moderation for the sub
That creates bad incentives, though. A streamer I mod for once suggested something similar, I told them I’d quit modding in that case. If it’s a job, it stops being a hobby.
I think I see the point - that people have very different beliefs and expectations about paid jobs versus volunteer work.
If I pay you just a little bit for something you were doing, it may not really register much because it isn't enough money to really do anything with besides buy a meal or a new toy here and there or something.
If I pay you enough for it to be considered a job, that brings in a whole bunch of new expectations on both sides. You may expect to be paid a fair wage compared to what you previously did, to have a good career path, to do something that looks good on a resume, to have a good work-life balance, etc. And they may expect a certain stable and reliable productivity level, advanced notice for any time off, etc.
I think you are confusing OPs point. If he is a volunteer moderator he gets to set his own expectations and efforts. By introducing a financial component it could disrupt his incentives, make him feel like he has to put X hours, and change the spirit/community of the people that now volunteer (but would then "work") with him
There is a name for this effect (it's no cognitive dissonance) I think - I recall reading about it in Freakonomics, wherein they discuss it in the scope of parents being "fined" for picking up their children late. The fine actually validated the tardiness as part of a business transaction - instead of being a social imposition - and actually led to more delays, not fewer
The most (in)famous example in the US is the American Red Cross following the US forces in Europe during WW2 beginning to charge a few cents for donuts that they had been giving away for free. While they were still inexpensive compared to their usual price at US donut shops, it was a huge change in the relationship that ended up souring a lot of soldiers towards the Red Cross.
The early Festinger (1959) studies are basically this exact point. Getting paid or paying transforms an internally driven experience into an externally driven one (get paid or deal with fines). Later studies generalized, but the idea that "external reward or punishment is involved" changes perception of the task from internally reward driven to external, due to the dissonance of "why I'm doing it."
The economists have their own name for many phenomena that come down to the same thing that the psychologists would predict. Hence the rise of "behavioral economics" to converge the fields.
Are you referring to incentives? Specifically turning a social incentive to a market incentive?
> The fine actually validated the tardiness as part of a business transaction
It should also be noted the parent’s monthly bill was around $380, and the fine was only around $3. So even being late every workday in a month was only an additional $60. And I’m sure some of those parents would happily spend that to be rid of their children for a little bit longer.
I do wish it was recorded whether the length of tardiness increased as well, and what the mean and mode were. Whether parents started to abuse the time or not, in effect milking the daycare for care, is an important data point as well.
Milking the daycare would look the same as people feeling less obligated to pick up on time, now that they are compensating the provider for the extra time spent.
Reddit has offered a premium subscription for years, though it's not specific to subreddits. It gives the user a customizable avatar, removes ads, and enhances a couple UI features.
Do discord and twitch actually make money though? Consumers are tired of subscriptions so I bet that would be a hard sell. They tried premium features with the gold and stuff but I don't think it every really caught on.
No. They charge a yearly fee for their "nitro" product which offers some perks in any server you're in. Each server can setup their own perks (emoji, reactions l, user name color, etc) for nitro users that join.
You also get sitewide access to emojis/stickers from other servers, for the $2.99/mo Basic plan. For $9.99/mo you get profile customization, HD video streaming, and 500MB uploads.
Decent perks for an eye-watering price, and you don’t even get encrypted messages to boot.
"More time" would equal "lower ROI" unless there is some magic inflection point that would cause a dramatic upward leap in gross margins. Gross margins, in this case, is mostly cost-per-user-acquisition. But "this new social network is amazing, I love it, and you should join" mostly happens when social networks are new, young, and small. It would be difficult to bring back the days of triple digit growth for a network the size of Reddit.
