What i still don’t quite understand with these kind of buyouts is who lends them the money and who gets saddled with the debt? Surely banks know the drill and wouldn’t want to borrow and hold debt for a company destined to fail in such a way.

Do banks get repaid before that happens and the only people being owed are small contractors and employees? Does the bank repackage the debt and sell it to someone else? Or are the interest payments high enough to just factor in losing part of the money borrowed with high certainty?

Agreed. Reusing the same set of hyped actors across films definitely reduces the level of immersion. Unless ofc the actors can truly transform themselves like Colin Farrell in the new Penguin series to give a recent example.

I think the issue is that nowadays the job of actors in big movies like these is just as much being a vehicle for marketing as it is the acting itself. I’ve heard that the rule of thumb is that Hollywood spends a similar amount on marketing as it does on production. So you want someone with a household name that people recognize, that people associate with a type of movie they like, and that can tour through the media circus and talks shows creating buzz.

Plus it helps with acquiring financing.

So as much as I’d want to see more fresh faces (and more normal people, not the unrealistic Hollywood standards), I doubt it’ll happen.

How do you profit of a company that hemorrhages a few billion a year?

While it runs a deficit you don’t or at least only through increased valuations, which ofc assume that you’ll eventually be able to turn a profit. Will this ever happen for OpenAI, i have no idea, but that is the bet. And for the likes of Microsoft spending a few billions on bets like this isn’t that big of a deal, just look at how much Meta burns in their VR department.

Even Amazon had AWS, which was the absurdly profitable core business at the center of a cost bleeding distribution center.

Uber was running a deficit for a long time until it turned profitable. It’s pretty normal for many new companies to burn money first before they turn a profit. The biggest cost seems to be training new models constantly, and i assume one hope is that eventually this slows down. Then they need to get operating costs down that where i think they currently roughly break even (?) or maybe run a minor loss, but that seems doable, considering the pace at which hardware is still improving.

OpenAI is doing nothing to generate economic value.

I wouldn’t say that it is nothing, but at this very moment it probably doesn’t equal the immense amount of resources poured into it. That said, if things improve both in terms of the quality of responses you can get from models as well as reduced costs to run them, then there is definitely huge economic potential.

You mean when the board of directors wanted to fire him? Considering the recent news of OpenAI transitioning towards for profit i think they got what they wanted from keeping him in charge. Seems like something Microsoft would benefit from and if they’d have gotten a different CEO at the time who knows if it had come to this point.

Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.

Importantly they tried to enter the market with a $40 purchase price, when the existing competition is mostly free to play.

Agreed. The difference is that the prequels were a failure in execution, whereas the sequels failed on a conceptual level.

Kind of late, since i just came around to seeing it. Some thoughts:

• I really liked the visuals and i’m glad i got to see it in the cinema on a really good screen, so more or less the best possible experience. But i agree that the Rook animatronic looked a bit off (i’d have to rewatch it again).

• As someone else already mentioned i also liked the dystopian setting of the first act.

• I liked that they were leaning more into the horror, rather than action genre. But imo unlike the first Alien movie it had a few too many jump scares and overused the xenomorphs. Where the original was able to build tension with what you can’t see, here you had a whole pack of them. And somehow they get mowed down way too easily.

• Agreed that there were too many callbacks and easter eggs, rather than letting the movie stand on its own. Especially the Ripley line was just too obvious and imo breaks the immersion into the movie.

• Not a huge fan of the third act

I also have regular problems with some subtitles. My solution is to enable using an external player in the jellyfin AndroidTV app (i think its under playback->advanced options) and then use VLC player which i’ve also installed to play the movie. That has never failed to me.

Downside is that unlike the regular exo player i don’t think it supports dolby vision, so i have to change this setting back and forth occasionally. It used to be that there was an option that you could tick, so it asked you everytime which player to use before playing a movie (with the downside that it couldn’t resume playing at a saved timestamp), but after a somewhat recent update this went away.

The issue is that would at best “reset” their reputation to zero. But the state that they’d like to go back to would be similar to “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”, which ofc only works with the existing name. And this line of thinking is what got damaged by the degrading processors (and maybe how they handle it).

But Intel has never been in worse shape. So I think it’s less about Intel considering it and more about if it gets forced on them either by activist investors (I remember seeing an article that Intel prepares to defend against that) or necessity.

I don’t think so. The degrading processors are certainly bad, but in the grand scheme of things won’t move the needle. The reputation loss is probably worse than whatever fine they end up paying (and they will drag it out).

The split would be between design and manufacturing. And it would mean a massive shift, not business as usual.

The design side is probably in better shape and would increase their use of TSMC instead of using the now spun off Intel fabs.

The manufacturing side would have it rough. But we are talking about only one of 3 manufacturers of leading edge chips here (together with tsmc and samsung), not something you “conveniently let go bankrupt”. They’d try to raise more money to finish their new fabs and secure customers (while trying to make up for the lost volume from the design side). But realistically I’d say that similar to Global foundries they would drop out of the expensive leading edge race.

I think in reality I would milk it for personal gain, but in this hypothetical thought experiment I’d also like to imagine putting it into public domain.

Yes we would certainly see a lot of trash, but I’d imagine that it would also lead to a lot of creativity. We really are hampered by the insanely long copyright durations.

Sherlock Holmes for example has been part of general culture for a long time, and yet the last novel only became public domain 2023. Considering how much the world changed between now and 1927 (when it was published) it really doesn’t make sense. And the argument for copyright that invention needs to pay also falls flat, when it extends so long even after the authors death.

Yeah, hadn’t heard about it until today either. But Steam also kind of torpedoed their launch by lifting their NDA for Deadlock on the same day. Not sure how similar they are, but that’ll grab most of the attention from gamers right now.

Photo manipulation has been around as long as the medium itself. And throughout the decades, people have worried about the veracity of images. When PhotoShop became popular, some decried it as the end of truthful photography. And now here’s AI, making things up entirely.

I actually think it isn’t the AI photo or video manipulation part that makes it a bigger issue nowadays (at least not primarily), but the way in which they are consumed. AI making things easier is just another puzzle piece in this trend.

Information volume and speed has increased dramatically, resulting in an overflow that significantly shortens the timespan that is dedicated to each piece of content. If i slowly read my sunday newspaper during breakfast, then i’ll give it much more attention, compared to scrolling through my social media feed. That lack of engagement makes it much easier for missinformation to have the desired effect.

There’s also the increased complexity of the world. Things can on the surface seem reasonable and true, but have knock on consequences that aren’t immediately apparent or only hold true within a narrow picture, but fall appart once viewed from a wider perspective. This just gets worse combined with the point above.

Then there’s the downfall of high profile leading newsoutlets in relevance and the increased fragmentation of the information landscape. Instead of carefully curated and verified content, immediacy and clickbait take priority. And this imo also has a negative effect on those more classical outlets, which have to compete with it.

You also have increased populism especially in politics and many more trends, all compounding on the same issue of missinformation.

And even if caught and corrected, usually the damage is done and the correction reaches far fewer people.

I’ve had two USB C ports fail on HMD phones.

Yeah, that’s what got my HMD made, Nokia branded, 7 plus. And from a search at the time this was a common problem

Yeah it’s pretty insane, for that kind of money it better be fantastic. Although I think nowadays the link between money and quality (to whatever degree it ever existed) is weaker than it’s ever been.

I’ve always wondered, how do streaming movies make money at all? Does Netflix really make enough money to justify spending this much on a movie?

Well they certainly make enough money, last quarters revenue was roughly 9.5 billion dollar. Sure you got server costs, salaries and licensing for old content that eat up a lot, but if you are getting over 3 billion per month from your subscribers you should be able to find some budget for expensive content.

I don’t think a movie like this will be efficient in $/h watched, those will go to cheap series and people putting on their favorite comfort show in the background for the 10th rerun. But they probably still need those big tent pole movies for psychological reasons. It’s good for marketing towards new subscribers and for user retention you will need the occasional blockbuster movie. Don’t need to be that many per year, since as said the vast majority of time will be spend watching some simple stuff, but you do need fresh content for the occasional movie night. Or people will start looking at the competition that offers those and which also has plenty of mindless entertainment.

If once you do not succeed, just try again next year. They tried and backtracked putting heated seats behind a paywall not even a year ago see here.

Unless laws are made to make this fundamentally illegal, they’ll just keep pushing until it sticks. And once one manufacturer succeeds, they’ll all follow.

Since he mentions enshittification, I assume he means Plex.

However I am pretty sure both will have some bugs. I use jellyfin, so I can only speak about that. But one annoyance is that the androidTV app sometimes doesn’t have the best subtitle support. However it allows you to open movies in external players, which is a workaround.

Definitely not an obvious choice and it might fail spectacularly. But imo this seems like the right choice in some ways.

Instead of trying to will a fomularic cinematic universe into existence, make a variety of unique movies (hopefully good), and then slowly tie them together.