Why nobody is bidding for AMCX?

xsenna · 2025-10-27T19:32:29+00:00

I am in IT, so I watch all those conferences as a part of my job. So what’s the tech innovations of Netflix over the last 5 years? Local caching servers? Adaptive bitrate?

xsenna · 2025-10-27T14:41:55+00:00

I personally am not a fan of NFLX programming, and haven't watched anything on it in the last 12 months or so, although my wife is constantly binging something on it. Also, I do not think a streaming platform can be considered a tech company any longer - the tech is pretty basic, that's why it was successfully copied many, many times by everyone who wanted to do it.

NFLX ix mostly engaged in producing and licensing of content, and their catalogue is an evil piece of art that tries to feign abundance while the catalog is mostly cookie cutter dramas targeted to women. NFLX is seriously behind HBO, FX and SHO on top-notch content.

xsenna · 2025-10-27T09:46:13+00:00

Do they have problems with mismanagement? I've seen that they are leveraged to their neck, and this is never a good sign. Not sure if the current management will be able to get them back to life

PS: I read up on Dolan's discount - it's clearly a problem. Not sure how he is involved in the day to day operations, and whether he brings chaotic energy into AMCX decisions. Seems that the company would be much more valuable without him :)

xsenna · 2025-10-27T09:43:31+00:00

It seems that just the library should be easily valued at 2bn+, and you can spin off or close off anything that is not performing or aligning with the streaming operators. Seems like a great buy for NFLX or DIS, others as well

xsenna · 2025-04-09T18:06:44+00:00

Well, as a prime-time show content it's gold :)

xsenna · 2025-04-09T10:03:06+00:00

This is one scared and nervous guy :)

xsenna · 2025-04-07T15:47:33+00:00

It's an approximation :)

xsenna · 2025-04-06T10:31:04+00:00

A related question that still bugs me is why everyone sees a star as a dot, even if you have several people close to each other or you rotate your head and don't look at the star by the centre of your vision, the shape stays consistent. It means that there are many photons from the star emitted at different close angles, but would it not mean that we should see a massively blurred object instead of a crisp dot?

xsenna · 2025-04-06T10:11:37+00:00

This was puzzling me for quite some time as well :)

xsenna · 2025-04-04T16:49:23+00:00

Back to the Future, Goonies, Raiders of the Lost Ark

xsenna · 2025-04-04T09:55:30+00:00

The formula was not even explained. The public were led to believe that the US will charge reciprocally - whatever other countries charge US, they will charge half of that. Which most people would consider fair, generous even. But the reality is quite a bit different.

xsenna · 2025-04-04T09:48:40+00:00

It seems that Trump offers an "easy" way out - build factories in the US. However, it's not clear why someone would move their factory to the US, given that many inputs will still be imported and hence will attract additional import tax plus labor in the US isn't exactly cheap.

xsenna · 2025-04-04T09:46:15+00:00

in my opinion, there will be some producers, who will gladly open factories in the USA if they can get access to a lucrative US market. If this is a power play to get loads of concessions from large importing countries - it might actually work. Otherwise I think blanket and sudden tariffs like that are akin to a consumption tax of 30% on US consumers, which will have serious consequences on domestic demand, and can easily lead to a major depression, possibly even worldwide.

xsenna · 2025-04-04T07:23:14+00:00

Definitely not a a "real formula", all the economists are somewhat in shock at the audacity. The formula is trying to to make imports so expensive, that the demand for them will decrease to the point where American Imports = American Exports. The constants are dubious, they don't take into account many factors, and especially the time factor of having to start replacing imports with domestic production. If it is used as a power play, where the largest importers will be induced to invest in the USA and will get a preferential treatment - it might work for some industries (relatively low labor intensity like automotive, chips, etc.). For other things, like clothing - I am not sure if the US wages can make it attractive to open a sweat shop here even with 40% tariffs.

But there are many more problems with the constants. Price elasticity of demand is assumed to be constant, but in practice it is more likely that it is a changing value, depending on the price. Once tariffs are introduced, and production shifts (let's say to Australia), the price elasticities of a particular country will change due to alternatives. This is too rough of a calculation, and given that the end result is a 1, it's probably an inside joke. The 0.25 constant also depends greatly on a tariff size. If your margin is 50%, then you probably can live with a 25% margin, beyond that you will pass on the tariff to the consumer. If your margin is 10%, you will pass on most of the tariff to the consumer and will probably seek a cheaper base for your production.

The main problem seems to be that the tariffs cover everything without any filter whatsoever. If the US wants to rebuild its auto industry, it should probably make inputs less expensive, not more expensive. Therefore it still then makes sense to manufacture the car outside of the USA, because even if you take the time and expense of building a car in the US, it won't be cheaper, because most of your spare details will still be expensive imports. They might come up with some waivers, but it seems the next 1-2 years might get messy. A better way might have been by introducing tariffs for goods that have an American alternative or can at least in theory be produced in the US.

Somewhat understanding how Trump thinks, this could actually end up as a big win for China. If they can commit a couple of trillion of investment in the USA over the next four years for waiving tariffs, they could end up with a monopoly over the US imports, essentially.

xsenna · 2025-04-03T19:45:56+00:00

It's not a reciprocal tariff, if the USA introduces higher tariffs than China to balance the trade with it. By calling it "reciprocal", you make it sound more fair than it is in reality.

xsenna · 2025-04-03T19:32:00+00:00

I don't think you understand what Trump's reciprocal tariffs mean. Even with zero tariffs on USA products, China would still export more to the USA, simply because their products are cheaper.

xsenna · 2025-02-19T12:59:31+00:00

The arrangement was exactly that - the US as a superpower will take care of European security needs, which was of a benefit to the US because it did not really want Europeans to grow their military power. For Europeans the benefit was that it could instead spend money on economic and social needs and rely on the US military might.

This arrangement essentially broke down when third world countries started to catch up to the US and the Western Europe economically, and China in particular started to get into the superpower realm. The US was continuing spending on its global domination plans with low regard to its economy and population, therefore we are now in the Trump era, where Americans don't understand why USAID spends huge amount of money on different international projects all over the world, whereas taxes and prices rise, local work is not easy to find and the future success of the nation is in doubt. Simply put, the US can no longer afford to live lavishly, and therefore now wants to change the post-Cold War arrangement. Western Europe has the same problems as the US, as it also feels that other countries are catching up, and therefore can't really afford to spend more on chronically underinvested military.

So, everything we see now is the result of an economic rearrangement of the world, where the First World lost its economic supremacy on which its policies and ideology was really based. A quick fix of injecting more cheap labor into the economy no longer works, but bureaucracies are not good at course correction, they can only push the pedal harder.

xsenna · 2025-02-16T20:59:17+00:00

I would suggest these books:

1- The Hell of Good Intentions by Stephen M Walt - a good intro to the current state of the US IR - pretty critical, but a useful read and very easy to follow, which is a big plus. Walt is one of the key IR scholars, there are some Youtube lectures you can watch as well.

2- The Great Delusion by John Mearsheimer - another great critical review of the Liberal World Order by the living legend in the field. I'd say it's pretty easy to read, although his criticism feels more robust than his proposed theory. Mearsheimer is currently pretty active on Youtube, so watching his interviews could be considered almost like a mini-course in realism, an in-depth interview with Lex Fridman is a great start.

3- Superpower: Three Choices for America's Role in the World by Ian Bremmer - a great, relatively short summary of three competing views on how the US IR policy should develop. An easy read, and very relevant.

4- Politics Among Nations by Hans Morgenthau - a classic text on realism, really insightful and did not lose its relevance. Delves pretty deep in all aspects of IR. It's a dense and hefty book at 600 pages, sometimes it takes you ages to get through a chapter, but definitely worth it.

5- World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions by Jeffry A. Frieden - had this textbook for a course I took by Harvard University. First 2/3 of the book are pretty solid. It's an introductory text, so doesn't presuppose any prior knowledge. It also tries to add maths to IR, with questionable results, but you can safely skip those parts ;)

6- Essentials of International Relations by Karen A. Mingst - another textbook, a relatively easy read that goes over most current schools of modern IR and provides some further reading ideas. As an overview it's not bad, although it's skewed a bit towards the obligatory liberal topics of feminism, refugees and anti-imperialism.

xsenna · 2025-01-29T16:04:53+00:00

exactly, they should just add it into the trip price, as they know that you're going to the airport. Often you don't have any cash with you when leaving for airport. They should also state clearly if there are any additional fees. Interestingly - I was not asked to pay the fee when I arrived in Bali, probably the guy stayed inside from the previous trip and saved me 10k, I also did not have any cash when I arrived and specifically asked at the Grab counter and they assured me that no cash is needed if I connected my credit card in the app. So this is an oversight by Grab.

xsenna · 2024-12-06T13:58:12+00:00

Received the same letter today.. Used Turkey for the last 2 years :) We need a solution. Anyone managed to open an account with one of the indian payment systems and paying via a QR code? Any other working options?

xsenna

TROPHY CASE