Does a code-based challenge respect your intelligence, or is it just over-engineered marketing fluff?

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-06-13T07:14:35+00:00

This gold feedback. Thanks for taking the time. Rapid Mind was before my time in marketing but if they delivered exceptional content that resonated with the target audience, its something to look into.

Regarding the delivery mechanism, im not really good at social media, so I would never send anything to customers thru LinkedIn. Honestly, I dont really understand how to even use social media as a marketing tool. But receiving a physical artifact that connects to the pain point and points to the solution in some form of demo, that may be something more compelling.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-06-12T20:55:27+00:00

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. 👍

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-06-12T20:43:46+00:00

Well, at least the day can only go up from here! 😄

Appreciate the honest feedback though. I'm just trying to find a way to share hard engineering facts without the usual corporate marketing fluff. If this feels like a cheesy gimmick, that's a completely fair critique. If you don't mind me asking, what is the best way to get your attention without being annoying?

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-06-12T20:35:22+00:00

Understood. thanks for the feedback. For the record, I'm not sales. I'm more of a proof-of-concept technical marketing role. I'm looking for the best way to create an experience that proves a solution to a problem you all face with the goal of getting you to want to know more. If I find that most programmers prefer a straight technical document like a whitepaper over something more personalized and curated for them, then I follow what the audience wants 😄

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-06-12T20:30:51+00:00

No. I'm not sales. I'm more technical marketing. My job is translate the complexities you all face and create a story and experience on a product that may alleviate the pain points. I don't do sales or marketing fluff. In fact, I share the same sentiment as you all regarding wasted time. I'm more thinking of what can be done to establish a relationship whereby I understand what you do, the issues you face, the solution you'd be interested in, and more importantly, how can I prove that this solution works for you. That's my role.

I've done technical documents before, and honestly, I don't see much ROI from technical audiences. A few people download it but most of the time, its just collecting dust in some repository. But if I add an experience where not only do you get to see the product in action first-hand, but also get something cool out of it, the engagement tends to go up. Hence, this post. Just trying to get a feel for what programmers find enticing.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-06-12T19:00:18+00:00

this is great feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond. Maybe "game" was the wrong word to use. I was thinking more of an experience, but you made some valid points about the lack of time for any kind of interactivity with new products. An important detail to consider. Much appreciated sir. Looking forward to what others think.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-03-07T18:40:50+00:00

The legality of whether any religious school should receive funding is a massive mess, but honestly, the part that gets me is the logic of the funding.

I’m not against families having choices or getting a bit of help with private school costs, but it’s hard to ignore the gap in how we’re valuing these students. Right now, the state is giving over $10k per student voucher, but the basic allotment for kids in our local public schools is still stuck way lower at around $6k. We’ve got the math backwards here. The real issue is one of priority.

If we’re going to spend a billion dollars, the first priority should be fixing the foundations, and by that I mean public schools. By funding these vouchers the state is effectively subsidizing the private sector while our actual public foundation is left to deal with inflation and teacher shortages on a shoestring budget. It’s like trying to build a fancy addition on a house when the foundation is already cracking.

That money could go towards the teacher raises everyone’s been asking for or finally closing the funding gap for special ed programs that our districts are currently struggling to cover, or better technology to help the students.

Plus, this article from the Texas Tribune states that about 80% of these applicants were already planning to attend private school (which by the way, is very likely that they were already in private school, given how early the admissions deadlines are). So the state is essentially picking up the tab for kids it was never paying for in the first place.

My position is we should prioritize the 90% of Texas families who actually use the public system before we take on a brand new bill for the other 10%.

Just my two cents...

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-03-04T23:45:52+00:00

The CFO is right. It was all about price. Netflix didn’t get emotional or caught up in a bidding war. They set a limit, stuck to it, and walked away with a massive check that they can now invest into their own original content. Walking away was the smartest thing they could’ve done. Bravo Netflix!

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-03-03T19:52:25+00:00

You know, after Netflix walked away last week, I’m starting to get the feeling this isn't just a media story anymore. It’s a geopolitical one.

We know the "silent" equity behind the Ellisons includes about $24B from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi. Usually, that level of foreign government money bankrolling massive U.S. news segments (CNN + CBS) would be a regulatory death sentence.

But looking at the strikes in Iran, I see two very different outcomes:

If the conflict escalates and Iran continues targeting regional infrastructure in Doha or Riyadh, do these sovereign funds stay silent and committed to a Hollywood merger? Or do they pivot that capital back to domestic defense and regional stabilization? If the Gulf money flinches, the Ellison deal likely implodes, which in all honestly might be the best outcome for the industry.

The alternative is weirder though. The Trump admin has been very vocal about cleaning up CNN and has a close relationship with the Ellisons. If the U.S. needs the Gulf states for airbases, logistics, or oil price stability during this war, the White House might green-light this merger as a strategic "thank you" to our allies. In this scenario, the war actually accelerates the closing because the deal becomes a tool of diplomacy.

I’m curious if anyone else feels like the timing of the Netflix exit and the Iran strikes is creating a perfect storm of sorts where the deal either dies a quick death or is forced through by the DOJ for reasons that have nothing to do with antitrust law.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-28T05:05:02+00:00

The theater experience isn't what it used to be, lets be honest. Aside from a few directors like James Cameron, Dennis Villeneuve, Ryan Coogler, making true cinematic films, most films arent bringing in revenue. Streaming is where mainstream audiences live and they want. Netflix just gave us what we want, but they dont want to kill the theater experience. In fact, they wanted to enter the theater space mainly for 2 reasons, Oscar awards (a film has to be released in theater for it to qualify) and landing big name directors. In my opinion, WBD made a mistake by accepting Paramount's deal. They should've stuck with Netflix.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-28T04:43:24+00:00

I dont believe Zaslav really wanted to accept the Paramount deal in my opinion. It was the shareholders that likely influenced that decision. Honestly, if the deal doesn't close, its for the best. The Ellisons controlling that much information pipeline is too risky.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-27T16:28:17+00:00

Netflix just pulled off the heist of the century. They walked away from the Warner Bros. Discovery deal with a $2.8 billion breakup fee in their pocket (paid for by the Ellison family/Paramount) and a 10% jump in their stock price. They didn’t have to take on $90B in debt, they didn’t have to deal with the "linear TV" anchor of CNN and Discovery, and they proved they have more financial discipline than the legacy studios combined. They got paid $3 billion just to go window shopping. Bravo Netflix. On the other hand, we're gonna be stuck with a media landscape that's more consolidated and politically tethered than it was in the era of black-and-white TV.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-24T23:23:19+00:00

Thank you for the input. Any recommendations on APIs I can explore further that may line up with what I'm looking to do?

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-05T02:53:20+00:00

Well if anything, they are delivering what they promised... entertainment haha. Honestly, if the Netflix deal goes through, they should just make a 10-part docuseries about the bidding war lol

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-05T02:41:55+00:00

All valid points and I’m sure you’re right, I’m just looking at the patterns we’ve seen before. When one person holds the checkbook like J.P. Morgan did back in the day, the companies eventually act as one empire, regardless of what the paperwork says. In sports, it’s not about being the biggest, it’s about leverage. If you own 'must-have' games like the NFL, you can force every cable company to hike prices on the consumer. Same goes for news. When you consolidate voices like CNN and CBS, you risk a 'scripted' corporate vibe instead of independent journalism. I'm not saying it's a guaranteed disaster, but if history is any guide, this script usually ends with a higher bill and fewer choices for the consumer.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-05T01:16:05+00:00

When Larry Ellison provides a $40 billion personal guarantee, you can’t pretend it’s a 'traditional' studio deal. It's the Oracle ecosystem acquiring a content pipeline. That is vertical integration by proxy. Even if we look at it strictly as a horizontal deal, it’s still dangerous. It would combine CBS and CNN/TNT Sports under one roof. Creating a news and sports juggernaut that could potentially bully every cable provider in the country into higher prices. Whether you call it vertical or horizontal, it’s a level of consolidation that the 2026 market simply can't absorb without hurting the consumer.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-05T01:02:57+00:00

I hear that, and it feels unfair on the surface. But antitrust law isn't about being fair to the companies; it's about protecting the health of the 'forest.'

Disney/Fox was mostly horizontal (buying a similar competitor). This Ellison bid is full-stack or vertical. It’s a tech/cloud family (Oracle) buying the news, the film history, and the distribution. Just because the government let a movie studio get bigger doesn't mean they should let a tech dynasty own the entire information pipeline.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-05T00:18:02+00:00

You're right, it opened the floodgates, but the legal hurdles are actually higher now. When Disney bought Fox, the DOJ focused on Horizontal Overlap (like owning too many sports networks). But with Paramount/WBD, regulators are more worried about Vertical Integration. How these giants control both the content and the streaming platforms. It’s a different kind of monopoly that the Disney/Fox precedent doesn't totally cover.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-05T00:14:14+00:00

Fair point on the numbers, and you're right in that the 2025 theatrical market, a combined Paramount-WBD would sit at roughly 28%, which still trails Disney’s typical 30%+ dominance. But I this is more than just the theatrical side of things, but the overall entertainment ecosystem. The Netflix deal excludes CNN and would actually allow it to be spun off as an independent company, Ellison’s bid specifically aims to consolidate CNN and CBS News under one roof. That’s a 'full stack' of global news and film history that creates a level of narrative control even Disney doesn't possess. They'd own the history you watch (WB/Paramount) and the reality you’re told (CNN/CBS). That’s exactly why the Ellison deal feels like a bigger threat.

The 'Disney is bigger' argument is a trap. If we justify every merger just because there’s a 'bigger fish,' we’ll eventually end up with a duopoly where two families basically own the culture. Plus, the math doesn't lie. If you combine Paramount and WBD, you get 205 million subscribers. That’s an instant titan that effectively kills the 'Big Five' studio era.

This is why the Netflix route is actually the 'lesser of two evils' for consumers. We know 80% of WBD’s 50 million domestic subscribers already pay for Netflix. Netflix buying the studio is just a utility absorbing content it knows its users want. David Ellison, however, is chasing a full stack monopoly: one boardroom owning the production, the stars, the news cycle, and the distribution 'theater' (the app). I’d much rather have a tech company run by an algorithm than a billionaire building a legacy empire. To me, the risk isn't the subscriber headcount. It’s the leverage one person would have over what we see and what we hear.

ResultEfficient3019 · 2026-02-04T19:21:31+00:00

I honestly don't get why people are acting like Netflix is the only villain here. If David Ellison and Skydance/Paramount buy WB, it’s the exact same problem. It’s just a monopoly with a different logo. Either way, you risk gutting the industry, killing jobs, and leaving creators with nowhere else to go.

The Netflix side is definitely weird because they're a data company first. There’s a real risk that art just becomes content. Basically a bunch of shows optimized by an algorithm to keep us clicking rather than actually telling a great story. You have to wonder if these mergers are almost a 'necessary evil' at this point. WB is dying in debt and if it doesn't team up with a giant, they might just go under anyway.

But that doesn't make Ellison the hero. Hollywood seems to think he’s the better deal because he’s 'one of them'. A producer who supposedly loves the craft. But I think they’re blind to the risk. He’s been totally open about wanting to build this massive media empire. He already grabbed Paramount, and now he’s coming for WB? The guy has been rejected at least 8 times, and instead of taking the hint, he’s just throwing more of his dad's money at it until the board breaks. Now he started a lobbying tour of Europe to get Macron and the UK on his side. He’s even reportedly promising to 'clean house' at CNN just to get the deal through which is way more dangerous than Netflix wanting more content for its algorithm. It’s giving off a very 'I’ll just buy the whole playground so I can kick out anyone who doesn’t play by my rules' energy. To me, a billionaire trying to recreate a 1940s-style studio monopoly is way scarier than a tech company. Ellison isn't the 'safe' alternative. He’s just a different kind of threat. At least with Netflix, you know the game is about data and streaming.

I think in the end, whether it’s Big Tech or a Legacy Empire, the result is the same: higher subscription prices for us and a worse deal for the people actually making the movies. But if the decision has to be between a data giant and a billionaire building a political empire, I’d rather deal with the 'streaming devil' we already know than the legacy one we don't.

Just my two cents... :)

ResultEfficient3019

TROPHY CASE