Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling? There's a site guideline that asks you to do just that.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
In spirit, this rule should hold even if you aren't attacking the author directly but are disparaging the value of their perspective.
That is simply unnecessary and you can just refute the point directly.
How is that worse than people literally calling each other's comments bullshit on HN?
Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5111959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6410617 .. and many more
Kind of like a microagression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression, I think...
Human language and idioms are hard to create rulesets for. Probably "name-calling" is too specific, but "microagression" may not be understood by all. However it is sad if we need to lawyer the guidelines.
However, in this context, calling their argument "utter nonsense" is utterly unnecessary and only serves to up the ante.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
We don't want name-calling (in this sense) because it leads to dumber, nastier internet discussion.
It's also particularly easy to avoid. If you take out its first sentence, the GP comment loses nothing but hostility and becomes a far better HN contribution.
I was pointing out to the commenter that while it was not technically as hominem, it is still not acceptable and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
I suspect that none of what I said is easy or even likely- but I do believe the risk of such things is real and that's why the board set up a poison pill, to ensure they got a real deal and not something more aggressive.
51% of a company is not some magic ticket that allows you to do basically anything (including screwing the other 49%). It just doesn't work that way. There are certain thresholds that allow you to do more and more things but if you're in control of a company you still have a fiduciary duty to the other shareholders, even small minority shareholders. This is why minority shareholder lawsuits are a thing. This is what makes the entire corporation system work otherwise the 51% would be constantly screwing over the 49%.
Take your example: if you buy 51% of the shares for $50/share and then try and merge at an effective $25/share. Well, that's illegal because you've failed your fiduciary duty to the 49%. You're effectively trying to steal from them.
Also, you can't just acquire 51% of a company. There are rules about that too. There are thresholds here too. IIRC more than 5% and you have to inform the market of taking a large position. More than (IIRC) 10-20% and you have to launch a formal takeover offer. There are rules about how that works too.