Re:Judge Refuses to Allow Sale of Infowars to The Onion
by johnnyanmac on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @04:18PM
(#42393082)
If all parties were happy with a bid, why does it need to be run "fairly"? This isn't house auction offereing up an artifact, this is a man guilty in the court of law going bankrupt and divvying off his assets. If the people in charge of said divvying and the ones owed money are happy, who really cares?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Judge Refuses to Allow Sale of Infowars to The Onion
by pclmulqdq on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @04:35PM
(#42393239)
All parties were not happy with the bid, which is why this went to a judge.
Re:Judge Refuses to Allow Sale of Infowars to The Onion
by Propelloni on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @06:00PM
(#42394011)
That's confusing. We know from the reporting that some parties were happy with the bid. I guess, you mean "not all parties were happy..."?
(Please note: this is not a case of ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) ≣ ¬∀x ∈ X P(x). ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) means "for all x not-P", while ¬∀x ∈ X P(x) reads "there exists no x that P", i.e. there is no party that is happy with the bid, which is either a false statement or not the intended meaning. This is actually a common, but not well-known mistake, so I'm pointing it out.)
EDIT: I even found a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification