awkwarddaturtle

> If you break it down, the Yahoo Alibaba + Yahoo Japan stake + Yahoo's final selling price equals Microsoft's $45/share offer

Actually, if mayer didn't sell a huge chunk of alibaba stake, the BABA stake by itself would be worth 120% of microsoft's bid.

YHOO owned 25% of alibaba. Alibaba is worth $400 B today. Microsoft's offer was $45 billion for YHOO.

> Many years ago Microsoft was trying to purchase Yahoo for $45 a share. Every company has their Yahoo moment, where they consider making an over the top purchase offer for a company, that in hind site looks like a terrible idea.

That bid was terrible for YHOO shareholders. You do realize YHOO owned a ton of alibaba stock and yahoo!japan stock right? The alibaba shares alone that yahoo owned is now worth more than the $45 billion offer by MSFT. That's after Mayer foolishly sold off a huge chunk of alibaba shares a few years ago to go on her buying spree.

If steve ballmer had managed to buy YHOO, it would have been one of the greatest deals in history.

YHOO owned 25% of alibaba ( which is worth about $400 billion today ). YHOO also owned Yahoo!Japan which was worth $10 billion.

If MSFT bought YHOO back then, we would be calling Steve Ballmer and MSFT a genius today.

It's all journalists. It's all media. Some are for sure outright corrupt but it's just part of the job.

> I'm not sure how easy this would be. Does anyone know if something like this exists?

Don't know of any such thing that exists today. But it shouldn't be that difficult. A simple database linking journalists, news organizations, to topics/companies/keywords/etc.

The data set shouldn't even be that large.

The most worrying part is tech industry buying news media. Steve Jobs wife bought The Atlantic. Bezos bought the washingtonpost. As the news properties become cheaper and the money floods the tech industry, I'm sure they'll snap up some more.

We really need a more diversity media landscape. It's entirely liberal with pockets of conservatism. We need less liberal, more conservative and much more moderate media.

It's unhealthy for the media to be heavily skewed to one or the other side.

Not only that, we need this is academia and corporations and the banking sector. More diversity. More competing thoughts/ideas.

> Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?

From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?"

$5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable".

> Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?

Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.

What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it.

Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. "

to be upvoted on HN.

Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.

> I'm not sure why you're so upset.

I'm not. But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters.

> The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context.

The context makes it even worse.

"None of us can unlearn what Tesla has taught us. There is no way back now. Tesla has already won.'"

I can't believe you think that the "context" makes it any less cultish. The comment is almost messianic.

> I don't see the jump from noting that the same enthusiastic fanboy is in the HN thread and the TSLA thread to "It's like a TSLA/Elon cult meeting in this thread."

Have you read the comments and the replies?

Yes. From all sides. It's sad thing to witness because my naive young self viewed social media as the promise of free information flow, honest interaction and entertainment. I guess that was wishful thinking.

It's also a shame that whenever I see comments like this I'm thinking why is a HN user trying to divert attention to a whole different topic?

There is so much agenda driven propaganda on social media now.

> I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said:

It's just the nature of where we live and our propaganda.

We have been told over and over that we are the light of the world and we represent good. China/Russia/Muslims/others represent bad.

> If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will.

I'm sure there is. Human beings are human beings.

In the future, maybe instead of national/racial demarcations, we'll have "valid" and "invalid" demarcations a la "Gattaca".

> it's inevitable that we also learn to control our own evolution.

The problem here is the pronoun "we" and "our". It isn't "we" who are going to control evolution. It is a select group of wealthy elites.

Also, just because china and russia might do it doesn't mean that we necessarily should do it. After all, the pioneers of illegal human experimentation was the US and britain but most of the world didn't follow along.

I agree with you that genetic engineering ( controlled evolution? ) is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the ethical concerns and other such pitfalls.

> You're not taking into account the size of the US. If you look for per capita Nobel prizes the US is not even in the top 10.

Per capita doesn't matter when it comes to being a superpower.

The US is an economic superpower and norway isn't even though norway's per capita GDP is larger than the US.

People are so interested in pushing their agenda that they refuse to address my point.

My point was that canada isn't an education "SUPERPOWER". I'm not saying canada is a bad country. I'm not saying other nations don't produce nobel prize winners. My point was solely about the article's propagandistic use of term "superpower".

You can twist data/stats any way you want. Under no definition is canada a superpower of anything, let alone education.

I'm just pointing out what a absurd "article" BBC pushed out.