Hacker News Reader

Comment by steponlego | Hacker News Reader

It’s BAYER Monsanto. BAYER Monsanto.

People don't call RedHat "IBM/Redhat", or as others suggest here, just "IBM".

Monsanto has always been in the news for things like this before the takeover, I doubt that the Bayer owners get involved in a U.S. matter like the FOIA request.

In case other folks missed the intent of this comment, Monsanto is now a part of Bayer. I guess this is meant to remind us of that.

Isn't it more correct how the article words it?

> Monsanto, owned by Germany-based Bayer, said in a statement...

Bayer isn't using the Monsanto name as a brand, which "BAYER Monsanto" strongly suggests.

It would be more correct to just call them Bayer all the time. They are trying to shield the original brand from the bad press associated with Monsanto but they stir the ship now.

How often do we talk here about Google rather than Alphabet?

The situation is totally dissimilar: Alphabet was clearly setup as a holding company to host both Google which remains a company by itself and other activities which were being spun out. Meanwhile, Bayer completely bought out Monsanto intending to merge it with its activities chasing synergies and phase out the name.

The press generaly properly refers to either Alphabet as the holding company or Google the company as approriate.

I thought Monsanto had been bought but continued to exist as a daughter of Bayer, but it seems you're right: there's no entity called Monsanto anymore, and the entity that was once Monsanto does not exist.

Eh, do you buy Duracell batteries or Berkshire Hathaway Duracell batteries?

do we call it Meta Instagram?

I mean, it would make sense, like Meta Facebook, Meta Oculus VR, etc.

Good or bad, the ones at the top have to be responsible for whatever happens under them or the buck just gets passed around, and if we don't even know where to point the finger, they don't have an incentive to be better.

A naming convention like this, while a bit stupid, would be better than having to look up who bought/owns/(is a subsidiary of) whom.

Why is it important to add the Bayer in this context?

Bayer actually went to war against the USA before WWI even started. That's why.

What are you referring to? How does a company go to war (before it's government?)

Look up the Phenol crisis, and it's easy - companies are at war with Russia today.

All the Phenol results are about the (2000s) US opioid epidemic (except one which is about Phenol free cigarettes in the 1960s...). I can't find a Phenol Crisis pre WW1.

The general history of Phenol makes no mention of Bayer either. The only application was by Lister as an antiseptic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Phenol_Plot

You can’t Google so it didn’t happen. OK. That’s unfortunate but I guess you’re stuck.

I've asked you three times what your talking about. I've looked myself. You still can't manage to tell me. So I guess I will never know...

Somebody else who knows how to Google already replied to you, now I expect you to fully read the link.

It's also a clear example of synecdoche.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com