MAX Changing Names Again...

These AI summaries are not always reliable, either.
It is just how I choose to respond to lakebum from now on, no matter how many links I post that proves my point or how I use his own words that proves him incorrect, he is going to say I am wrong, he is always correct and so much more intelligent then everyone else, because he claims he works in the industry.

If he does really work for Warner, that is not something I would brag about, that studio is a dumpster fire straight out of hell, tons of flops, all their cable channels are on their way to failing, so badly that Warner is getting rid of them ( which lakebum said I was incorrect about).

HBO is about to have their 4th or 5th reboot in 5 years, the debt is about $8 Billion more than the market cap, now financial institutions/ analysts have basically declared the company junk( which I provided links for a few posts before this one).
 
I dont see where he ever claimed to work for Warner.
Dude, never said it wouldn't happen. What I said was that it was not a deal that was done as your two paragraphs stated. I can tell you that I was in the room when it was decided and it was AFTER this post. Period. Believe what you want, but at the time of posting it was 100% undecided and could have gone either way.

So, unless he was just hanging out at Warner.
 
AI Overview

Yes, a stock can be declared to be of "junk status," but it's not a direct declaration about the stock itself. Instead, it refers to a bond issued by a company that has been downgraded to a level below investment grade, often called "high-yield" or "junk" status. This downgrade typically reflects a perceived increase in the risk of the company defaulting on its debt obligations.
Not factual. Sorry you are so ignorant in this space. Maybe read a book (instead of an AI summary). Your AI summary actually contradicts itself FYI
 
The generic chatbots, like ChatGPT, are trained on the contents of the Internet, which is one reason why they make so many mistakes.

Correct. They're like those web "spiders" that comb websites aggregating publicly available information. The AI summaries "reasoning" is often flawed because the source of the information is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
Not factual. Sorry you are so ignorant in this space. Maybe read a book (instead of an AI summary). Your AI summary actually contradicts itself FYI
I have never wrote it was factual, but since everything you posted to myself in response has been untrue, I am going with it, until I have evidence it is not.

For example, Warner is not receiving any tax benefits for shelving programming, to studios receives 55% of the box office in China, now the latest, Warner is not spinning off the cable channels, those are all thing you have posted, all incorrect, yet I posted the correct information, but you continue to go after me here, cannot even admit you were wrong.

And you are right, I never worked in finance, never claimed I did, my focus in my work has always statistics and analytics, which I also used in determining what stocks to purchase, for example, I always knew Netflix would be a winner, so I currently have 3000 shares ( i just checked to make sure I was correct on the number, used to have a lot more, but sold them off over time, wished I did not), all bought before the 7 to 1 stock split.

While Netflix is the example of a great company in our new streaming world, Warner Bros. Discovery is the example of a disaster, tell me one good thing they have done since Discovery took over, I cannot believe they are worst than AT&T in running the company, but here we are.
 
Last edited:
These AI summaries are not always reliable, either.
Well, I'll see about that. *Google "are ai overview accurate"*
Google AI Overview said:
AI-generated summaries can be helpful for quickly grasping the main points of a text, but they are not always accurate and can sometimes introduce errors or misinterpretations.
AI overview agrees.

But wait... if they can introduce errors and misinterpretations... that could mean AI Overviews are always accurate and the above is wrong. :eek:
 
I have never wrote it was factual, but since everything you posted to myself in response has been untrue, I am going with it, until I have evidence it is not.
You never wrote it was factual, but yet you posted it to refute what two other people - with finance expertise, mind you - said was incorrect. Several people here have said AI summaries are unreliable and even explained why, but yet you keep using them. It's the equivalent of showing up at a history lecture with notes scribbled on paper from your friend who's studying math.

Again, a "junk stock" is not an official rating or downgrade, as we have said, but in case you need more evidence here's a great article about so-called junk stocks and the OTC market. Such a savvy investor like yourself might enjoy it Understanding Junk Stocks: #1 Comprehensive Guide For Beginning Traders | OneOption - Stocks & Options Trading Suite

Honestly Bruce.....as a piece of feedback (you'll take it as a personal attack, but whatever) you should try harder to actually listen to what people are saying, learn from others who may be trying to patiently teach something, and spend less time worrying about whether you are right. Yes, this is the internet and we can all yell and rant, but the unique nature of Satelliteguys is there are some very intelligent people here to actually want to help others become more knowledgeable in their varied areas of expertise. It's not about being right all the time, but about making each other better.
 

Prime Video ads to double

Top