Nobody said anything about fairness or duty.

My point was that if the seller is trying to maximize its self-interest by maximizing the IPO price, leaving no room for growth after IPO, then buyers probably want to take a pass at that price.

Ideally priced from the perspective of pre-IPO investors.

This seems like an argument for outside investors not to buy IPO stock.

I'd very much like to forget Neill as Damien in Omen III. Chilling.

https://bsky.app/profile/tbray.org

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:zcjwxwfgk756to5cl52crfue

Ars Technica has already trashed its reputation with the infamous controversy over publishing AI hallucinated quotations.

I couldn't decide whether the opening sentence of the submitted article was so dumb that it had to be written by AI or so dumb that it had to be written by a human, and coming to a conclusion on that question didn't seem worth it.

> you could churn the entire article through AI to summarize it

I don't do AI summaries, ever.

The relative amount of time it takes to read a book compared to the time it takes to place a bet is largely irrelevant, because reading books is worth doing, and there is time for it. If you want, you can read and bet, on the same day!

It's not necessarily true, however, that gambling can be done more frequently than reading, because gambling requires money, and if you keep gambling a lot, you'll likely run out of money.

Yes, that's the point.

> A typical Ivy Leaguer isn't a dumbass.

But that's not what the quoted sentence said.

> Try visiting a Walmart and interacting with literally anyone. That's the average.

I've been to Walmart. Does that make me average? (You say literally anyone.) Do you think that Ivy Leaguers never go to Walmart?

> Let's not allow our egos to gatekeep who we consider intelligent, fellow HNians.

You say this in the same paragraph where you rip on Walmart customers.

Do you know what "by definition" means?

> I have met many Ivy League students and grads; they are all intelligent, at least in an academic way.

You probably wouldn't meet the dumb ones, because they're probaly not in your social class:

> rich parents

I stopped reading after the first sentence.

The comparisons were fine. I guess it makes you feel good to tell yourself that I was "nit picking around the edges", but I was actually disagreeing with you 100%.

Not necessarily. Is Harry Potter for edification? Trashy romance novels?

In any case, the article specifically notes that reading for pleasure, a subset of all reading, has declined.

> One conflated a time-consuming activity with a quick one, and the other conflated time periods of comparison.

There was no conflation by the article.

You presented a selective quotation that omitted the yearly book reading stats and attempted to argue misleadingly that the article was comparing a daily time scale to a yearly time scale.

I think you missed the point of the reading vs. gambling comparison. From the article: "Gambling has become [emphasis mine] a more common leisure activity than reading a book." In other words, the change is the point. Gambling was not always more popular than reading.

Anyway, I don't buy the "energy" story, that doomscrolling is somehow low-energy, or even that people can't muster the energy for any activity other than doomscrolling.

How did people get worse at reading, other than choosing to spend time on the alternative activities that I listed? You may be reversing cause and effect.

Yes, but do you only do things for pleasure if they're done quickly? Is your sex always over in a minute?

Also, I was responding to this:

> Likewise, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a totally different measure than "placed a bet last year".

Yes, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a different measure than "placed a bet last year", but "read a book of any kind in 2022" is the same length of time, though not the exact same year.

Anyone who has the time and energy to spend on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, or for that matter, anyone who has the time and energy to spend watching TV.