341–350 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is disgusting corruption, a direct wealth transfer from the many to the few. shame on everyone involved
> this is disgusting corruption The guy called 401(k)s a Ponzi scheme. Now, he's coming after them to loot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are growing revenue at a high rate then taking profit is a misallocation of resources. That is short-term thinking. It is much better to reinvest in revenue growth. You can take small profit now or much larger profit later. Insisting that companies need to be profitable even when growing revenue rapidly is failing the marshmallow test.
The point is that the unit economics are way worse because inference is expensive. Cost of goods sold matters, even if you're reinvesting profits.
[flagged]
You're claiming without evidence that the bureaucracy and regulators are corrupt to the core? No way I refuse to hear another bad word about the government, they are above reproach sir.
The "bureaucracy and regulators" are at most engaged in passive corruption.
For passive corruption to exist, you need massive active corruption effort.
Why is everyone focusing on vilifying passive corruption while completely ignoring active corruption? I mean, I'm hearing lots of conspiratorial remarks directed at regulators but... Who stood to benefit? Aren't those responsible?
I mean, why was regulation required to begin with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're claiming without evidence that the bureaucracy and regulators are corrupt to the core? No way I refuse to hear another bad word about the government, they are above reproach sir.
To be fair, these are not regulators, just private companies making up rules, so technically this is not corruption just something that looks like it but it's just business™
What I find odd is that the comments are critical of how the police didn't caught thieves, but there is absolute silence towards thieves and the fact they have been engaged in thieving for ever.
Another comparison is people blaming the fire department for not inspecting sprinklers after an arsonist torched the place. It seems to me that the arsonist is the root cause, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s defensible about Anthropic’s revenue? It seems like OpenAI and others are equivalent. Open weight models are catching up. Google has ads networks, video platforms, and so much more. I am skeptical that Anthropic and OpenAI can defend their dominance for long enough to make meaningful gaap accounted profits
They will defend it the way any good monopoly always does: buying the competition. Case in point is Facebook: it is just a social network, the way they really stay on top is buying other companies and paying for people to spend even more time on their properties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI in space, for all that sweet sweet latency.
More like for all that sweet sweet cooling capacity. EDIT: guys, it's sarcastic... since the parent was talking about latency, cooling is something that is even worse in space than latency
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need the opposition taking names for investigations in 2029. They're not all getting pardons.
They're just as on the take as anyone. Think about it: you have hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence that the hyper-wealthy may have trafficked minors across state and international borders. Only one person is in prison over it, and her cell gets upgrades. 35 years ago this would have been a slam dunk for the opposition party of any republic. Instead of standing ten toes down on it, opposition leaders are doing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
except the last bubble pop hit fast and hard with post covid inflation.
It worked. The only people upset about it are young people who don't vote. If young people don't want a continual wealth transfer from them to the old, they need to start voting. That's been the case since 2008, and here we are a generation later.
Also very bold of you to assume voting does much.
(coming from a 22 year old who votes at every federal, state and local election).
For SpaceX (and possible the others): Yes it can, since they changed the rules to force over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations. From https://x.com/Hedgeye/status/2060435253928604065 : "Rule changes for the SpaceX $SPCX IPO: Index providers waived the profitability requirement and cut the seasoning window from 90 days to 5. This forces over $30 trillion in passive 401k a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the obvious thing to do, for someone that's got ~$3mm to play with, is to setup an ETF that is SP500 but with the old rules. If you can convince $40mm of other people's money to go into your not-specifically-Musk-less-but-just-happens-to-be ETF, they'd come out ahead.
Only $3mm needed?