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

Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–345 of 345 posts

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#341

Post by ai-x »

siren2026 wrote: post #203
ai-x wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content of all these comments has a smell similar to 2023 when NVDA had a spectacular run and HN was absolutely sure that AI is a bubble. It's also similar to 2024 when HN was sure that AI is a bubble. Similar to 2025 when HN commentators were sure that AI is a bubble. 1000% gains later, HN will continue to identify patterns of 2000/2008 and are absolutely convinced it is a bubble Note: If a company gains 1000% a…

Depending on how much that bubble will pop, all of those above might still be very right. We could very well go back to the 2021 valuations.

If it doesn't, at what point will the 'bears' admit they were horribly and confidently wrong?

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#342

Post by zulban »

logicchains wrote: post #301
sc68cal wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

He said "as soon as", so it's a pretty testable prediction.

"implode" is not testable. A good prediction is specific, time bound, measurable, etc. Otherwise you can flatter yourself however you like with confirmation bias. This is basic stuff.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#343

Post by SR2Z »

bombcar wrote: post #315
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very persuasive argument that Google should have been broken up years ago.

Google selling ads on their search to people using their browser and phone was way more anti-trustful than anything Microsoft ever did, tbh. Especially when you consider that they bribe Apple and Firefox to funnel users to them, too.

To be fair the fact that Google overcame not being the default browser is incredibly impressive. It's easy to forget now just how dark the days of IE6 were.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#344

Post by philipallstar »

komali2 wrote: post #323
philipallstar wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to work is less agency than not having to work. Being able to choose to work, and choose a nice lifestyle career while your husband has to work a hard job to afford the lifestyle is far more agency than men have.

> Having to work is less agency than not having to work. Both are working. One is getting money that they get to decide what to do with, the other (the wife) doesn't get paid but gets room and board but very little autonomy - for example, they were expected to deliver sexual gratification on demand, mood or no. It's honestly surprising to me how people seem to still not be aware of the amount of labor women at home d…

> for example, they were expected to deliver sexual gratification on demand, mood or no.

This a caricature. Women were women back then.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#345

Post by mmcwilliams »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #211
mmcwilliams wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to ignore the fact that millions of non-technical people did pay cash for a product: AOL. And in fact the AOL buyout of Time Warner coincided almost exactly with burst of the dot com boom.

> the AOL buyout of Time Warner To be clear, there is a world of difference between IPOs and LBOs. In the risk they create. And in the risk they signal.

That may be the case but the idea that non-technical people didn't pay cash for internet products before the dot com boom is fanciful. I would say AOL's acquisition of a legacy media company did signal the peak of a mania the way these IPOs are.
Post reply on HN