|
Rage wrote: but realized I might win.
LOL!! Be careful out there.
Also, I believe this proves that the purchase of Tumblr was not unfounded. It was definitely a sound business decision. 
My forthcoming book, Launch Your Android App, is available for pre-sale at Amazon.com -- releases on April 1, 2016 (no joke). 
|
|
|
|
|
Don't they own half of AliBaba/Ali Express?
I think we're looking at a change of focus, rather than a collapse.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I think we're looking at a change of focus, rather than a collapse.
Well, that's not very encouraging. 
My forthcoming book, Launch Your Android App, is available for pre-sale at Amazon.com -- releases on April 1, 2016 (no joke).
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I think we're looking at a change of focus, rather than a collapse.
Well yes, they're changing their focus from the massive leak at one end of the boat to the massive leak at the other end of the boat. It won't stop them sinking though. The general opinion is that if you gave the current board a goose laying golden eggs they'd manage to starve it or lose it in days such is their singular failure to make anything worthwhile out of their Alibaba deal.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Cash-flow is God, remember.
As long as money is coming in and going out (in large volumes, in this case), you're invulnerable.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
They were tinkering with the idea of spinning off the alibaba part but it looks like they scrapped it.
|
|
|
|
|
They're currently looking at going the other way around for tax reasons. Selling/spinning off their share of Alibaba would result in a huge capital gains hit. Instead they're going to sell/spin off everything else. Old-Yahoo will become a holding company with IIRC $30bn of Alibaba; New-Yahoo will hold all of their other businesses and their share of Yahoo Japan. The latter may or may not result in a second round of selling off; it's a healthy business worth more than the giant pile of mediocrity that is the remainder of Yahoo. I've seen claims ranging from it and Yahoo-everything else sharing nothing but a name; and that while Yahoo.jp is independently run the two companies share a lot of back end tech that would make a formal breakup painful.
A breakup of some sort is all but assured; the mismatched conglomerate discount on Yahoo at present is about equal to the ~$5+5 bn valuations for Yahoo.jp and Yahoo.everythingelse. IOW the company as a whole is trading at roughly the value of its Alibaba stock. Partly this is that the longterm health of yahoo.everythingelse; and partly the standard conglomerate hit from the different parts of the company appealing to different types of investor, who are all discounting the value of the parts they don't care about.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I am returned to tell you that the answer to ..
1) This year I (9082365) am as old as the century was in the year I was born. How old am I?
.. is, as Hobby Proggy was first to say and Manfred first to prove, 58. How this is possible since I'm sure my 21st birthday was only yesterday is a puzzle yet to be resolved!
2) Jack who is unmarried is looking at Anne. Anne is looking at George who is married. Is an unmarried person looking at a married person? Yes, no, or is it impossible to determine?
... is, as David Crow was first to say and Richard Deeming first to prove, YES. Much hilarity in The Guardian this morning with people defending their wrong answers even after the logic had been explained to them by the writer of the article and hundreds of below the line commenters. The question, they maintained, was badly written or incomplete, the setter was an idiot far below their own intellectual powers. One even suggested that married is not a binary state. Anything to prevent simply admitting that they'd failed! As I commented, it's no wonder the world is going to hell in a handcart if there are that many people prepared to go to the barricades for such a patently and provably errant cause!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
modified 29-Mar-16 13:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
1) 58
2) Yes because Jack is the witness of George and Anne while they are getting married XD
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
1.
2016 - x = 1900 + x
2016 - 1900 = 2x
116 = 2x
x = 58
1958 + 58 = 2016 q.e.d
2. Not enough information
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
1) You're 58.
2) Nothing is told about Anne's marital status; so "impossible to determine".
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
How did you arrive at 56?
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote down the following equation (x being the age):
2016 - (1900 + x) = x
2016 - 1900 - x = x
116 - x = x
2x = 116
x = 58
I made a typo writing down the number in the post, which I corrected quite immediately.
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
phil.o wrote: Nothing is told about Anne's marital status; so "impossible to determine".
Are you sure about that? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
No ^^
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
i) 8
b) Who cares? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: i) 8
Now why didn't I think of that!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Sneaky OG is impressing again, all answers are totally correct!
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) Yes. Regardless of Anne's marital status, an unmarried person is looking at a married person.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
#1: You're either 8 or 58. Probably the latter.
#2: Yes, assuming you don't introduce some state of not-married-but-not-unmarried-ness:
- If Anne is married, Jack is the unmarried person looking at the married person;
- If Anne is unmarried, she is the unmarried person looking at the married person (George);
- George is probably looking at Zippy. Or possibly Bungle.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: George is probably looking at Zippy. Or possibly Bungle.
Yeah, but what the heck is Geoffrey looking at? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Probably Bungle's twanger. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You mean...Have you seen Bungles Twanger?[^] (May not be SFW, depending on headphones used.)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: 1) This year I (9082365) am as old as the century was in the year I was born. How old am I?
You are 20, so born in 1996.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
