|
GrandpaPants posted:That accepting billionaire pedophile money is okay until you get caught. I don't see the problem with accepting money from suspicious donors as such. As long as the donor is kept at arm's length and doesn't get to turn the operation into an extension of their PR department I don't care if researchers accept funding indirectly via taxes or directly via donations from Trump/Nazi gold hoards/[insert bad person/group]. It's just that Media Lab has been run by assholes happy to actively carry water for bigger assholes.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 17:35
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:What are the most notable ideas which have come out of the MIT Media Lab? Mitch Resnick's work is legitimately great, I have a huge amount of respect for that guy. He's the Mr. Rogers of tech. He's also got the official title that I am not making up of "LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research", named for the founder of the media lab and a corporation that shovels money into it. gently caress the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:He's also got the official title that I am not making up of "LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research", named for the founder of the media lab and a corporation that shovels money into it. gently caress the world. Endowed professorships can be pretty 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
It really cannot be overstated how much the Silicon Valley tech industry has become the investment banking industry of 2005, except that the amounts of money involved are an order of magnitude beyond what banks ever paid anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:I don't see the problem with accepting money from suspicious donors as such. As long as the donor is kept at arm's length and doesn't get to turn the operation into an extension of their PR department I don't care if researchers accept funding indirectly via taxes or directly via donations from Trump/Nazi gold hoards/[insert bad person/group]. That's extremely not what happens. Corporations who "sponsor" media lab projects usually end up owning the technology outright, and usually deal with the students directly. These aren't research grants or unrestricted donations, it's an open-air market for overpriced bad ideas that will never go anywhere. It's basically Silicon Valley in a microcosm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:That's extremely not what happens. Corporations who "sponsor" media lab projects usually end up owning the technology outright, and usually deal with the students directly. These aren't research grants or unrestricted donations, it's an open-air market for overpriced bad ideas that will never go anywhere. It's basically Silicon Valley in a microcosm. That simply boils down to a really wasteful form of contract research or consultancy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:I don't see the problem with accepting money from suspicious donors as such. As long as the donor is kept at arm's length and doesn't get to turn the operation into an extension of their PR department I don't care if researchers accept funding indirectly via taxes or directly via donations from Trump/Nazi gold hoards/[insert bad person/group]. Universities taking money from rich people, even if those rich people have only the faintest say in how the money gets used, creates a situation in which the people talking to these rich people have to be acceptable to those rich people and you end up with university officials who are predisposed to be sympathetic to the rich and powerful. These donations don't happen in a vacuum. With taxes, representatives of the people decide what to do with the money, some of which is given to schools. It has its flaws, some of them deep, but I find your comparison between the two situations disturbing, they are not even close.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
MIT is a private university, it's already inherently about being acceptable to rich people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Universities taking money from rich people, even if those rich people have only the faintest say in how the money gets used, creates a situation in which the people talking to these rich people have to be acceptable to those rich people and you end up with university officials who are predisposed to be sympathetic to the rich and powerful. These donations don't happen in a vacuum. With taxes, representatives of the people decide what to do with the money, some of which is given to schools. It has its flaws, some of them deep, but I find your comparison between the two situations disturbing, they are not even close. Yes but we already knew that trying to plaster philantopry, competition and markets all across higher education/academic research is bad. In the absence of better funding policies I don't think it's realistic to expect universities to fall on their sword and say no to money though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:MIT is a private university, it's already inherently about being acceptable to rich people. I think we are differing on the is/ought axis here. suck my woke dick posted:Yes but we already knew that trying to plaster philantopry, competition and markets all across higher education/academic research is bad. In the absence of better funding policies I don't think it's realistic to expect universities to fall on their sword and say no to money though. Ok, but this is different from what you said in the post I responded to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Shut up and JAM! posted:How much money did you make landlord? -1000$+ after the fact that some of my roommates didn't pay their share of the rent and jacked up the heating bill for no reason. "Slumlord" in quotes, I wasn't the landlord, but the principle tenant who was sole responsible for rent; but I in turn had like 7 roommates+roaches. I even had to take one of them to court and get them evicted because they were disturbing/crazy/violent and didn't clean up their messes. I eventually informed the landlord that I would not be renewing the lease and moved to a new city for my new job and hopefully I never have roommates again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
Looks like Uber now wants to disrupt payday lending https://twitter.com/lorenasgonzalez/status/1169741774408929280?s=21
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Was listening to This Week in Tech today, and heard this one: DOJ demands Apple and Google give them data on everyone who downloaded a gun scope tuning app called Obsidian 4: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.atn.obsidian4K
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Was listening to This Week in Tech today, and heard this one: Ah so they're trying to see who is using the app outside the US and in violation of arms exports quote:The US government has reportedly ordered Apple and Google to hand over the names, phone numbers and IP addresses of at least 10,000 users of a gun scope app. The data request is part of an investigation into weapons export violations, but it has privacy experts understandably concerned. According to Forbes, this is the first known case of US investigators demanding personal data from users of a single app from Apple and Google.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ericgplatt/status/1171182674750390274?s=21 This is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Probably too early for that, but it would be hilarious if a company hyping the novel idea of "what if we own property and charge other people to use it" pops the tech bubble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Probably too early for that, but it would be hilarious if a company hyping the novel idea of "what if we rent property and charge other people to use it" pops the tech bubble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
"How did these people gently caress up something as simple as 'charging rent'!? And why did we invest money in them!?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
I am interested in how they're losing so much money. Is it all going to renovating the space before they start leasing it? Are the rents they charge too low? It can't all be paying the CEO for trademarking the word "We" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I am interested in how they're losing so much money. Is it all going to renovating the space before they start leasing it? Are the rents they charge too low? It can't all be paying the CEO for trademarking the word "We" or whatever. Buy a building with company A, rent it to company B at market rate or a bit higher, have company C service the building and charge company. A, have company D own the rights to company A, B and C’s IP, have company E spread magic disruption dust and have SoftBank fund B to keep the whole thing fed with VC cash. Serve beer after 3 and have uncomfortable phone booths. None of the money is lost, just grifted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Probably too early for that, but it would be hilarious if a company hyping the novel idea of "what if we own property and charge other people to use it" pops the tech bubble. I am so here for this. Total Meatlove posted:Buy a building with company A, rent it to company B at market rate or a bit higher, have company C service the building and charge company. A, have company D own the rights to company A, B and C’s IP, have company E spread magic disruption dust and have SoftBank fund B to keep the whole thing fed with VC cash. They also purchased a stake in a wave pool maker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:Buy a building with company A, rent it to company B at market rate or a bit higher, have company C service the building and charge company. A, have company D own the rights to company A, B and C’s IP, have company E spread magic disruption dust and have SoftBank fund B to keep the whole thing fed with VC cash. He's already been forced to reduce the amount of money he is paying himself for the rights to the word We because the grifting was a bit too obvious there. It's impressive how many layers he has setup with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
I think I'm starting to get the trick to getting rich: never spend your own money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:https://twitter.com/ericgplatt/status/1171182674750390274?s=21 https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1171410145357811713 They're ignoring SoftBank's pleas. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Doggles posted:https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1171410145357811713 So... how big of a disaster is this going to be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:So... how big of a disaster is this going to be? I mean as far as investors are concerned they manage to lose money loving rent-seeking, which is a thing they can actually understand and have some framework for how insane that is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
WeWork needs the IPO because it has $6bn in bank loans lined up that are contingent on $3-4bn being raised in an IPO before they're allowed to draw. If SoftBank aren't going to inject more money then a business that's burning cash as fast as WeWork needs that bank funding.Feinne posted:I mean as far as investors are concerned they manage to lose money loving rent-seeking, which is a thing they can actually understand and have some framework for how insane that is. This has been the most insane thing about WeWork from the beginning. It operates in a thoroughly understood sector and any competent investor knows almost exactly how much money you can make rent-seeking, and that it's nowhere near enough to back up any of the valuations they bought into WeWork at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
peanut- posted:WeWork needs the IPO because it has $6bn in bank loans lined up that are contingent on $3-4bn being raised in an IPO before they're allowed to draw. If SoftBank aren't going to inject more money then a business that's burning cash as fast as WeWork needs that bank funding. On the other hand, SoftBank is trying to raise another $100B for a venture fund right now and having a high profile loser isn't likely to get investor's enthused. Given the choice, I'm not sure I'd rather SoftBank or WeWork go down if I can't have both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:On the other hand, SoftBank is trying to raise another $100B for a venture fund right now and having a high profile loser isn't likely to get investor's enthused. Given the choice, I'm not sure I'd rather SoftBank or WeWork go down if I can't have both. I mean if WeWork's IPO doesn't raise enough for those contingent loans then they're essentially out of business at their current grift rate, which would also cut the throat of SoftBank's fund. So you could get both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
If this takes down SoftBank who else is coming down with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I mean if WeWork's IPO doesn't raise enough for those contingent loans then they're essentially out of business at their current grift rate, which would also cut the throat of SoftBank's fund. So you could get both. grift finds a way
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
I mean it's unlikely WeWork would instantly collapse or anything if the IPO doesn't happen. But they'd have to renegotiate those loans and borrow less money on more expensive terms, which they obviously don't want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If this takes down SoftBank who else is coming down with it? itll be a black eye, but it wont take down SoftBank
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
yeah softbank is goddamn huge
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Could be a canary in the coal mine. Lehmann Bros was huge too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Could be a canary in the coal mine. Lehmann Bros was huge too. they're not really comparable. softbank is much larger than lehman bros ever was. softbank is invested mostly in technology, either as a shareholder or outright owner of telecoms, robotics, etc. like softbank owns boston dynamics and sprint and a ton of other steady revenue generation streams in asia. lehman bros borrowed money to invest heavily in subprime lending softbank could lose their entire stake in uber and wework and it would be a real bad day but it wouldn't kill the company
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Could be a canary in the coal mine. Lehmann Bros was huge too. they've got a giant VC slush fund that's walled off from the rest of the company that would take the hit. also that bit owns a ton of telecom and service providers that they actually get revenue in from the bigger deal would be as was pointed out earlier, is that it's in the process of arranging a second giant VC slush fund and WeWork loving up would likely gently caress that up
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Could be a canary in the coal mine. Lehmann Bros was huge too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:they're not really comparable. softbank is much larger than lehman bros ever was. softbank is invested mostly in technology, either as a shareholder or outright owner of telecoms, robotics, etc. like softbank owns boston dynamics and sprint and a ton of other steady revenue generation streams in asia. lehman bros borrowed money to invest heavily in subprime lending There's also the issue that Lehman's collapse had more to do with the US Treasury's bungling of the issue. Hank Paulson assumed the Lehman could go bankrupt (definitely no bad blood there either given Paulson was a Goldman guy prior lmfao) and serve as a backstop to the moral hazard of banks assuming bailouts were guaranteed to happen. They miscalculated though because Lehman had significant UK assets and bankruptcy in the UK causes an immediate seizure of assets and halting of business. Lehman rather than gracefully going through bankruptcy saw its entire business collapse overnight as it lost access to credit, and since Lehman operated 100% on credit tons of banks in wall street were exposed. And not just to their bad debt but also the shady instruments they were selling (CDOs and stuff) which then caused the credit markets, including between the banks themselves. It was this total freezing of credit that caused the crisis. So yes, it only takes one big thing to happen to cause the whole house of cards to come down, but there have to be more intricacies involved than just the firm being exposed to a lot of risk. I don't know enough about Softbank's financials to really comment, but it seems unlikely to be similar to Lehman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
softbank has its fingers in a ton of different telecom providers, and in fact got real big real fast off the growth of the internet in japan. like yahoo partnered with softbank for the yahoo japan site which was dominant, softbank was/is deep in mobile phones, and for overseas investments softbank was one of the earliest investors in alibaba which made *checks notes* something like 3,000% returns. so they've got much better financial health than tripling down on subprime mortgages
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 17:52
|
|