Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

matteast.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 219 posts

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#171

Post by shimman »

nozzlegear wrote: post #116
shimman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh, am very biased as I design similar sites but I honestly prefer these to what would be likely string of random social media posts. I like having relevant graphics stickied while text is displayed alongside it (assuming by blog post you mean the typical page-like top to bottom approach). edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexp…

> edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexplored idea compared to the typical blog post. The New York Times generally does the "lots of data, text and graphs in a scrolling presentation" tastefully.

Any articles that demonstrate this? Haven't read the NYT in like 15 years. Only vaguely familiar with the data viz that Mike Bostock created while there, and only because he shared them on a defunct blocks site.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#172

Post by seattle_spring »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #135
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #79

I don't think some people understand how money works. If you say you're going to have $3.4T in revenue, someone has to have that money, and give it to you. So where is the money? Who has it? Are they spending it somewhere else right now, and will decide to instead spend it on SpaceX later? Or is the money just sitting in savings accounts, strangely not being spent or invested? And why would they put their money into…

Space based data centers is a cover for space weaponry.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#173

Post by mlyle »

lmm wrote: post #164
mlyle wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am upset that I am forced to either rebalance out of NASDAQ and incur significant tax consequences, or bet that SpaceX is about to become nearly 10 percent of GDP and keep exceptional margins while doing it. I would not voluntarily take that bet, but we have regulatory and financial engineering nearly forcing me to do so.

I'm upset that we allow people like you to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, possibly indefinitely, so anything that makes that harder even "accidentally" is ok by me.

I would rather capital gains be taxed at income rates but indexed to inflation. I am fine with that being a fair bit more.

But ripping off pension funds so you can tax me more, as a side effect of enriching people that engage in these shennanigans, doesn’t seem like a great move.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#176

Post by dmix »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #135
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #79

I don't think some people understand how money works. If you say you're going to have $3.4T in revenue, someone has to have that money, and give it to you. So where is the money? Who has it? Are they spending it somewhere else right now, and will decide to instead spend it on SpaceX later? Or is the money just sitting in savings accounts, strangely not being spent or invested? And why would they put their money into…

Space based data centers is a cover for space weaponry.

Yep a space anti ballistic missile system (aka Golden Dome and before that Brilliant Pebbles) is likely coming if SpaceX figures out starship and China figures out their Starship clone. Plus maybe a “rods from god” type offensive system if these countries can’t make a deal to avoid space weapons.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#177

Post by [deleted] »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #166
jfengel wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to be skeptical about quotes, especially when they affirm my preconceptions. So here's the surrounding material: “You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over, you know I can say it now ... you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran, until right now.” OK then.

I don't even, I can't, what?

[deleted]

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#178

Post by greycol »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #163
giancarlostoro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My corporate firewall blocked this due to it being a newly registered domain. So I can't even see it, I care less about "vibe coding" but it sounds like someone registered a domain just to get attention on their amazing take about why they think they're qualified to tell the world the future.

Do you know by which mechanism they recognize newly registered domains in order to block them?

It's a whois lookup, registrars provide that information.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#179

Post by Havoc »

conductr wrote: post #110

It's insane to me that regulators are just letting the forced bid hack unfold with their heads in the sand as if they are unaware of what's happening or the press it's receiving. Sometimes there are clever ways to hack the system and the regulators can react and blame poor hindsight, that's not the case here.

US checks and balances no longer function and with it went sane regulation

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#180

Post by Havoc »

danielovichdk wrote: post #19

I think the US is in such a fucked up place economically, that the stock market is so overheated and will cause grave inflation, but it's the only lever left to pull for the government, that it will cause havoc within the next 10 years. SpaceX or any of AI companies for that matter is absolutely not worth their money, but they will be carried through by government legislation, because otherwise the economy will be fu…

> otherwise the economy will be fucked for the US.

There is no „for the US“ here. If the US blows up everything does. Even the broadest of World ETFs are super US heavy

Post reply on HN