531–540 of 542 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if i had to short 1 of the 3, it would be OpenAI
The company with the best model by far?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s literally just a satellite with GPUs on it. SpaceX already has about 100MW of satellites in orbit. They’re making an upgraded version of these satellites, V3, designed for launch on Starship. Making a bigger versions of those with larger radiators (because of the duty cycle) and putting them in sun-synch is all that is required, if it can be done cheaply enough. And Starship, if it works, should be cheap enough…
Ok… but thats not a data center?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would anyone "engagement farm" on HN? That's crazy. All sorts of reasons! One is that when you reach 1000 karma, you gain the ability to downvote comments. You seem like a smart person. I'm sure you can think of some reasons why that might be useful.
This is just silly. HN rewards comments people agree with, not "engagement". Engagement farming works on social media platforms that reward engagement. Posting engagement bait in HN comments would just result in downvotes.
Why do you think all engagement farming would result in downvotes? You think HN posters are so keen at sniffing out bad actors that they would never reward them by accident?
It feels like you're being willfully dense about this. I can see why the other person accused you of being AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just silly. HN rewards comments people agree with, not "engagement". Engagement farming works on social media platforms that reward engagement. Posting engagement bait in HN comments would just result in downvotes.
HN rewards engagement in the form of upvotes. If you make a post or comment with the intention of getting upvotes, you're engagement farming. I hate to break it to you, but there are many people doing that on this website. Why do you think all engagement farming would result in downvotes? You think HN posters are so keen at sniffing out bad actors that they would never reward them by accident? It feels like you're be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external. As someone who has little experience in American stocks and index, would you explain it a bit more ? What you mean that nasdaq is also the market ? I thought they are both index, a valuation of entreprises and that's all.
Trading of publicly listed stocks happen on stock exchanges, Nasdaq is one of these. They make money by charging fees for companies to publicly list stocks. But also charging fees from anyone who wants to directly trade there. Say stock brokers who allow smaller customers to trade via services these brokers offer. So Nasdaq owns the company which facilitates this trading of stocks. But they also own the company which…
That's a serious conflict of interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN rewards engagement in the form of upvotes. If you make a post or comment with the intention of getting upvotes, you're engagement farming. I hate to break it to you, but there are many people doing that on this website. Why do you think all engagement farming would result in downvotes? You think HN posters are so keen at sniffing out bad actors that they would never reward them by accident? It feels like you're be…
[flagged]
Here's one that I think sums it up pretty well:
"Engagement farming refers to a range of deceptive practices on social media designed to artificially inflate engagement metrics such as likes, shares, comments, and followers."
"Engagement farming employs various tactics to exploit social media algorithms, with the intent to appear more popular than actual user interest would warrant. Examples include posting controversial content to provoke emotional responses, repurposing successful posts without originality, and using automated systems for mass liking or following." [1]
If you don't think this is happening on HN (especially to mass downvote posts) you're naive.
[1] https://www.isme.in/engagement-farming-prof-sriram-prabhakar...
Having lived through a couple big market busts over the past 30 years, it's interesting to see that almost all of them were caused by a loosening of standards. e.g. - DotCom boom was letting companies IPO even if they had no revenue - Great Recession was due to loosening credit restrictions for mortgages e.g. giving people NINJA (no income, no job) loans so very curious to see how this plays out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You're conflating engagement farming and rage-baiting. Engagement can be both positive and negative. I can't find any online sources that agree with your definition. Here's one that I think sums it up pretty well: "Engagement farming refers to a range of deceptive practices on social media designed to artificially inflate engagement metrics such as likes, shares, comments, and followers." "Engagement farming employs…
"Engagement" has a specific meaning. It's different from "like farming" or "karma farming". Some platforms specifically reward engagement, making it a reasonable thing to farm on those platforms.
> using automated systems for mass liking or following
Clearly the author was clueless, this has nothing whatsoever to do with engagement farming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP. It seems crazy to me to make a comparison between a company being valued on it's current profit and then to say it's reasonable for another company to have the same market cap because it could eventually have the same profit.
I didn't say that at all. I said it was achievable for SpaceX eventually. It's not a $1T company yet. Reading comprehension, people.
> Yeah, but is SpaceX actually worth $1T
The question and context of your response was about SpaceX's present value. Given the context, I think my response was absolutely a fair reading of your response.
> Reading comprehension, people.
Indeed.
Keeping newly-publicly listed companies off an index keeps outliers from screwing with the index. It's no secret that companies that have recently gone public tend to be considerably more volatile than companies that have been public for a while. I see a lot of comments saying things to this effect: "S&P 500 is just a metric/benchmark, not a fund, so it should consider the whole market even if that includes a newly-l…
The irony of all this drama is probably 90% of 401ks (retirement accounts) are in a target date fund since that's the default for most/all. When you get your 401k it figures out when you're going to be 65 and then drops you in a fund that gives you the highest and safest return at the time you hit 65. Target date funds contain all kinds of other funds and are actively managed and drift towards bonds (historically saf…