If not more is reasonable too, I kept it easy in the last comment that 20-25% is a reasonable assumption, but considering the error rate and type of survey, our estimates likely are on the lower bound than the middle or upper bound, so "if not more" in my comment indicates potential spot on the curve is on the left, but we don't know where, but the assumption is that we are not at the upper bound, and I provided a range estimate as well acknowledging error and unknown

FYI 16.9% is the 65+ total US population, in this study it was only looking at 18+, so you adjust the population and 65+ is around 20% of US 18+ population (its actually about 21%-22%, depending on what metrics you use, and I don't have the methodology of the survey, so using 20% as an assumption is fine, as it even underestimates, so teh comment about "if not more" is even more valid since i underestimated the "no" group)

Not making up numbers, extrapolating already existing date.

65+ makes up about 20% of the entire 18+ US population, for which this study is based off. Assuming methodology is within reasonable ranges, you can assume about 20% of the sample is also 65+, with N=2000 they likely have a wide, representative, sample, as YouGov is a pretty reliable survey group.

When you take those "prefer not to say" on a basis of already asking about potentially vice or illegal actions which tend do underreport, you could always change it to a likert scale, and those "prefer not to say" are probably falling into a "likely, or highly likely" type bucket, which is good enough to make assumptions, and again, at least some, likely not insignificant number will give false responses of "no" or "not sure" even though they do pirate, you have to account for this error

So you add in all these sources of change, error, and bucket in likely users and remove about 20% of the population (65+), that were highly likely in the "No" category, and you would reasonable see a shift to the right slightly. Its very reasonable to assume 20%-25% may be more indicitive of the 18-64 range

Its more like the torrent protocol simply breaks any idea that a user is not "sharing" and copying the content, since inherent in torrents is that you have upload and download. There's a lot more to say, but yeah, lets not kid ourselves about how torrents work

This also includes 65+ audience that likely has no idea what any of these questions even were and thats ~20% of the sample.

And there is an additional 5% that is "prefer not to say" which means yes.

Its probably 20-25% of the 18-64 population would reasonable assumptions who pirate, if not more

I assure you, 80s and 90s kids content boom was long dead before youtube, netflix, streaming, or any of this other stuff came about, instead those were the beneficiaries of their demise on broadcast as they could pickup shows cheap and many networks would offer kids content streaming free on their websites, as their value was basically zero on the network

I'm not familiar with that show. If you want references, today they must be labeled E/I, so you can look at tv guide and see what types of shows count

Because of a law passed by the US putting regulations on children's TV shows during the 90s. The real effect of this wasn't quite a thing until the late 90s and got solidified shortly after in the early 2000s as all the broadcasters were on board and business models had changed.

Basically, children's TV was a free for all of all types, local, national, acquired overseas content, lvie action, cartoons, just bonkers and go crazy with it.

This lead to tons of kids programming on broadcast since it did pretty well, especially in certain hours, like before school and saturday morning. Animation became the go to here, for lots of reasons, but they aren't important.

So while the 80s and 90s were absolutely filled with all types of childrens animated shows, some good, bad, for younger kids, or teens, experimental or classic -- lots of options and the ratings were good so things were good, keep watching! Its doing great, we can take chances, and we can invest in this.

But then in the mid-late 90s a law passed earlier was more cracked down on-- it forces broadcast networks to make a certain amount of 'Educational & Informative' (called E/I) content, airing roughly 1-2 hours per day.

So this content can be anything, but it was mandatory conent, and most cartoons and stuff didn't meet its needs. Instead you'd often just purchase some shit syndicated show (like some guy with animals, or an educational cartoon). And really the only place for this, was the same time as kids TV.

So you basically cut out a big chunk of kids TV every single day.

Lots more happened, but it gets technical and less ELI5... but suffice it to say, a lot of content in kids areas got pushed out or FAR more highly selective for the same time slots, and thus, the boom shifted away from kids animation on broadcast networks more to cable nets that could content with lower ratings and more niche content. Broadcast just didn't need to recompete to regain that audience, it wasn't worth it.

Current Market Cap: $6.5B

So its a 38% premium. Thats on the extreme edge of valuation for taking it private. I suspect it may go for a nice premium but that seems a little much to ask, especially with the recent stock increase and a buyout already being factored in.

Depends what packages are offered. Especially if NBC is still doing CFB, saturdays get weird for half the year. Its not bad, but a few weekend games is a pretty awkward package compared to RSNs and TNT

Just Zaslav negotiating in public. Don't read too hard into it

Yes and no

Nationally television games in the NBA actually don't do that great. RSNs do OK, national less so. Thats why it makes sense on channels like TNT.

NBC doesn't really have a good home for it right now, outside of like NBA finals.

The books are pretty YA by almost any definition

I don’t think this works as animated. It has to feel real otherwise you can twist and turn any direction because there are no rules in animation

Also, no need for R. It’s a YA story. I bet the author would have a religious freak out if it was R as well

Well, there was a way to prove his identity <flop>

I think Eggers couldn't figure it out and just put some stuff in there that can be interpreted in many ways as a solution to his problem. I'm not kidding at all here, I think he couldn't figure out exactly the lore or story or meanings, is it a test or something or magic, and just kinda tossed it all there and said, yeah, whatever, let the audience deal with it.

Kevin being president was a different episode. Everything in book of Nora was real. The Kevin episode probably isn’t real of course. But Noras is. There is a long standing thing about Nora not being able to lie… that is prior to the book of Nora where she gains the ability to. But she may or may not have decided to use it. She can lie now, but will she?

So it does-- all things with no mass travel at the same speed.

The deeper question is why is that speed this value: 299,792,458 m/s. This speed appears to be a fundamental "limit" of the universe we live in

Everything that happened in the episode was real... but if she is lying or not is the question

'A bit' is an English style sarcastic take like "its just a flesh wound". Its a disaster.

People soon enough need to just get to the acceptance phase, that this movie was really bad.

Its not a horror or scary movie at all... its 'fear' is from suspense and weirdness.

Lol. No one watched this show anyways. It was always doomed

The show has actually improved after the downslide but not back to its previous quality and that seems gone now. He’s not getting great guests either. He’s pretty mad at the woke stuff but not because it’s wrong but he thinks it’s what’s causing people to not like dems. (Tbf this isn’t a particularly an unpopular opinion). More like he bitches that it’s their platform not that it’s wrong. But he just won’t shut up about jt. He makes a reasonable point than drags out too long. A lot of bitching at “young people” too (although not all misdirected). If anything he’s more open about having libertarian style ideas.

Anyways. Down from before, better than pandemic.

Yup

The cool part is the writers basically have said she both is lying and is not lying and both are true. It’s just up to the audience to decide… although they have definite opinions internally.

They actually did want to shoot an episode on the other side with Nora but it was cut because they went from 10 eps to 8 in S3. The other episode would have been back in Jarden with Kevin’s kids. But they made it clear they did not shoot these and they are not shown to us… we got the story as is. So did she lie?

Both just need to be more compact. Short monologue, couple jokes to start us off and get to the guest. Same with new rules. Just close out with it for a few minutes is all. They are fine as intro/outro but go on too long