Valuable to new investors. Old investors get hosed. I really struggle with these sorts of situations. She’s presumably doing something similar with the new company so all the old investors who didn’t participate (presuming a pay to play) get hosed. Is that really fair?

Clean cap table and she probably provided a decent amount of the funding for the first startup. It's also more than likely a tax thing here. I don't think people ought to get too obsessed with the contractual details on this one.

It's "valuable" to the company and to new investors. It's quite the opposite to old investors. In the world of public companies, a "liquidate a shell company" trick like this is presumptively fraud. If you want to liquidate the company you have to buy back the stock at market price, not whatever your purchaser is offering.

It's legitimate only if the existing investors are getting enough liquidity back from the sale to make it worth the transaction. The article says that "almost" all the investors are on board, so... maybe.

Indeed; and when you don't want the brand it's even more ideal. We saw a few months ago an example of the "new company" buying the brand and the assets but not the liabilities, including some suckers who bought "lifetime" subscriptions[1] from the old owners that they allegedly didn't even disclose, and which legally speaking weren't the liability of this random unrelated company which just bought the assets and the brand of the defunct company who made the promises.

In this case though with a new name and product that won't be an issue.

[1] someone else will remember the name of that company - it escapes me

Is it not illegal in the US to break up a company to isolate liabilities?

People still give Adam Neumann money

I think they're pointing out that the sentence is symmetric.

"That product saw little adoption" - "and pretty much languished."

"privacy concerns" - "about privacy"

I think it boils down to you get what you pay for. If information is free, it will become same as noise.

Poor style gives a sense of character and authenticity.

The AI would, hands down, write a better sentence if you compared the output quality of an author writing 10,000 words per day with an AI writing 10,000 words per day. Or make the AI write 100,000 words per day, it could write sentences better than that 24/7 without breaking a sweat, while the human would literally be incapable of achieving this goal.

But if you gave both a month to write the best 400 word article they could possibly generate on a particular subject, the human author would dominate. Give them time to make a few drafts, to research and think and talk to people, to edit and reorganize and restart and rehearse, and they'll produce something that's worth being read and re-read and considered thoughtfully by thousands of people.

The problem is that the journalism industry has become optimized to generate content to be skimmed by a few people and read by thousands of bots.

> Yes. She made a tremendous amount of money for herself while failing miserably at Yahoo!.

I was at Yahoo from 2004-2011, so I've got my opinions, but I think failing miserably at Yahoo is like the default option. It was a great gig to take in 2012 --- if you do well, well then it's clearly your leadership; if you don't do well, it's that Yahoo wasn't salvageable.