IMHO, there is no room for a 70B investment in games at this time. The industry is mature and won't be growing any time soon, at least in the West. There had been a rush of investors founding new studios and propping old ones in the past decade but the vast majority of those had already been wiped out. And all of those were probably just a fraction of what Microsoft had spent just in this acquisition.
Another crazy deal like this is the EA's buyout, I wonder if it will come through or the investors will eventually realize that they are not going to see their money ever again.
>All physical exertion causes pain and discomfort, otherwise it isn't exertion.
Not really, it causes pain and discomfort only when you have fucked up your body to the point where even a small amount of exertion is over the limit. Children seek physical exertion and will do it even against orders. A 6 y.o. is running around not because he is overcoming pain for the future health benefits, he is doing it because it's enjoyable for a body that has not degraded through decades of bad habits. People spend thousands a year on running shoes or bikes or tennis rackets and club membership are not doing that to enhance their pain and suffering either.
Even if they had made it exclusive, $70B is too much for this. CoD sales would fall - not everyone buying it would go out and buy an Xbox, Xbox hardware sales would raise. Let's be optimistic and say every CoD player (including ones who already bought Xbox ) goes out and buys another Xbox and then buys 2 xboxes in the next generation. So it's ~20M more Xboxes sold. To break even on this investment in 10 years MS has to make ~$2400 from each console sold over lifetime ($68B - 10*$2B annual profit = $48B over 20M extra units). Of course, if each sold Xbox made that much money they would not sell them for $400, they'd pay you to get one.
Acquiring a game studio only makes sense if you see a way to make it grow either by providing capital or better management. E.g. Activision acquired Treyarch in 2001 for $20M, which was probably 4-5x of its annual profit at the time. Seeing that very few people played (or even heard of) Die By The Sword or Draconus you could imagine that there was still a room to grow so there was a good chance you break even on your investment even sooner than 5 years and start making profit for yourself. Treyarch, who did not need to do the sports games contracts anymore and could hire more people, proceeded to making Spiderman and, later, CoD. I believe Spiderman alone made way more than $20M spent in the acquisition.
Buying Activision for 20x of its annual profit, on the other hand, makes zero sense. ABK was not lacking capital, had the same MBA management Microsoft has and did not have much room to grow, Blizzard alone had 5K employees. Their IPs had long time since plateaued or had been in decline already. What was Microsoft plan to increase profit? Switch everyone to Teams? Put more people to work on CoD and release 2-3 CoDs per year, hoping they all will sell as well as the annual CoD? The more realistic path to return of the investment could come from increasing Xbox's share of the market by making their newly acquired IPs Xbox exclusive. But they did not do even that.
Where I live, it's already illegal to shoot fireworks in the city limits, people still do that. Banning sales and importation is the next logical step.
I am fine with the professional fireworks shows but people setting fireworks inside residential areas, in all hours of night, for weeks during summer is just people being massive douchebags.
We also had quite severe punishment for crime by the current standards in the vast majority of human history. I'd be fine changing cameras for stockades and gallows, and dealing with car and bike thieves the same way we used to deal with horse thieves but would you?
California also has ports and railways, servicing the vast majority of trade with China. It has the strongest agricultural industry in the union. Aerospace industry from manufacturing to space launches. Worth mentioning the the oil and gas industry. It will take a long time for all these to be gone. It's easy to move Twitter or Tesla HQ to another state, but physical production is not as mobile, the same Tesla's factory is still in California.
Well, yes. How does it make window units feasible though? I used to rent an old house in California, it had central air but also wrapped wooden windows with single pane glass. I ran A/C whole day in the summer and could only get 10F (80F inside with 90F outside), which was a relief but far from ideal. A window unit with an open window, covered in cloth is not going to save you from heat IMHO.
It really makes no sense. Death from heat is caused by the absolute temperature, not a difference. If it's 30C outside and you can get get 10C difference then it's 20C inside, which is not going to cause death per se so it's "enough to prevent death" but if it's 40C and you are getting the same 10C difference it's 30C inside which is likely to kill frail people.
I see, all I found is a piece of cloth you tape around window opening though. I don't think it's doing a great job of insulation, and, paired with an inefficient portable unit, what kind of temperature difference can you get inside vs outside?
From what I understand, windows in Europe are very different than in the US - they don't slide open but swing, like doors. So an American window unit, which seals the window opening, is not feasible. They have portable units with air hoses, but I am also not sure how you can get such a hose out of a swinging window without leaving a big gap for the hot air to come back.
Many people rent without ever owning a house, we don't call them "homeless" normally. Even if you owned a house they still allow you to rent. You can even rent while owning a house or several.