As someone with some knowledge of the accelerator, I'd describe it as a preferred partner program. I'd only recommend it to series B or beyond. The kinds of mentorship you'll get won't be very relevant to a startup. You won't learn about building companies and you won't gain much of a professional network to raise or sell to, but you'll get meetings with any part of Disney you want to pitch to for a partnership. For the right company that can be huge, like Sphero building BB-8. I'm unfamiliar with their terms.
They're very different. YC is for companies in the idea or pre-PMF stage and want help building a business. This is more for established companies that are looking for creative partnership opportunities. Epic was hardly a young company when they did it, and the outcome was mostly to sell UE to Disney in exchange for equity.
One company this worked out really well for was Sphero. Their robot toy had been on the market a couple years, and they joined the accelerator right before the new Star Wars movie came out with the BB-8, which was a match made in heaven. So if your product could benefit from licensing deals, then the Disney accelerator could be helpful for making those connections.
I still cannot help but think they have a deep mistrust of software given their digital efforts other than Pixar. Letting EA do it versus continuing Lucas Arts doesn't seem to be isolated.
Disney has struggled to make software part of its DNA, but they've made great strides. As legacy companies go, they've done it better and faster than most.
Gaming is a whole other thing. After Disney Infinity, they embarked on a policy of licensing IP instead of publishing or developing games. Games are a hits-driven business, and Disney Interactive wasn't profitable. Licensing and partnership is more consistent revenue.
Are there people who believe Disney is somehow pro-LGBT? They're a corporation: they're anti-LGBT and pro-money; the only time they seem to be pro-LGBT is when they think there is a monetary advantage to seem that way.
The only reason Disney is against the Florida "Don't Say Gay" bill is because this might cost them a fraction of a percent of their revenue. Note: they cut anything that can be misconstrued as gay-friendly content entirely for anti-LGBT foreign markets, such as China.
Disney does not care about you, or anyone else. They care about money. They are an entertainment company, and the largest one in the world, and they want to turn your money into their money as efficiently and quickly as possible; no matter if you are LGBT or not, your money is still green.
They are not, however, pedophiles, nor do they support some sort of pedophile agenda. Anyone who claims to believe that doth protest too much.
> Are there people who believe Disney is somehow pro-LGBT? They're a corporation: they're anti-LGBT and pro-money; the only time they seem to be pro-LGBT is when they think there is a monetary advantage to seem that way.
That article is making Raveneau out to be some exec, but really she's not an executive producer like they claim, and is basically just a director of four episodes of a direct to streaming series that hasn't even finished it's first season yet.
A series that Disney also goes out of it's way not to play in markets that aren't already LGBT friendly.
No, it was implying that Disney's pro LGBT stance and opposition to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill was tantamount to support for pedophilia. This is part of the Republican Party's general strategy to gain support for anti-LGBT legislation by fabricating a moral panic about pedophile "groomers" with the Democratic Party and LGBT community, in particular where support for trans rights is concerned.
> This is part of the Republican Party's general strategy ...
Why is it ok for the left to promote conspiracy theories about Republicans? You and the Qanon guy in the thread, there are throwing out baseless stuff that if it were from your opponents you would dismiss as conspiracy. Personally, I don't agree with (or really even understand the basis for) the "grooming" stuff I've seen on far right outlets, I think that's garbage. But I certainly don't believe there is some Republican conspiracy going on, it's just some low brow media outlets, and no doubt politicians, trying to get attention. It's not party doctrine, and its not some conspiracy
> it's just some low brow media outlets, and no doubt politicians, trying to get attention. It's not party doctrine, and its not some conspiracy
No, it really isn't. The Republican Party has been captured by the far right and this sort of thing has become party doctrine. If you're not willing to trust the sources I've posted, you can find plenty of others, with plenty of corroborating quotes from Republicans. Or feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I'm not sure why you are focusing on sex itself. It is not mentioned at all in the text of HB 1557.
There is a difference between gender identity, sexual orientation, and actual sex acts. You seem to be referring to sex acts. I have yet to see an example of Florida school content for K-3 that actually discusses sex acts, much less in a way that could ever be interpreted as grooming.
Does this bill prohibit using a book or story in a second grade class if it features a child with two fathers? It's unclear. If it does, wouldn't it also prohibit stories with a mother & father? They would equally broach the subject of sexual & gender identity.
Oh, that would do it. Yeah, you can tell anyone who's into insulting Disney definitely gets their opinions from news media, it's pretty obvious they've become this weeks punching bag.
The bill bans the discussions of sexuality, correct? If accurate, which I believe it is, then a teacher changed their name because they got married, say a man taking his wife's/husband's last name or a woman taking her husband's/wife's last name then telling their students something about their sexuality in the vast majority of cases would it not?
