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

Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#541

Post by KingMob »

tomhow wrote: post #513
KingMob wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think so? I feel like HN has always had a high level of simping.

HN is, at the time of writing, over 48 million posts over nearly two decades. Whatever you want to notice, you'll notice plenty of examples of. So, sure, I guess there has been plenty of "simping" over the years on HN. There has also been plenty of the opposite of it. As someone who reads the comments (particularly the most emotionally charged ones) every day, the sentiment towards prominent tech companies and leader…

If you're focusing on emotionally charged comments, then you're looking at a biased data set, yes?

I have you tagged as an admin; have you ever thought of blogging statistical/ML analyses of HN sentiment?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#542

Post by ajmurmann »

whodidntante wrote: post #463
ajmurmann wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What should a company that launches 98% of the world's non government tonnage to space (80% if you include the Chinese government) be valued at ?" The TAM of that is under $10 billion. So even owning that entire market shouldn't get you anywhere near a trillion. Then factor in the development cost of starship which has been going on forever and still hasn't even made it to orbit. Even the IPO filing isn't claiming t…

I am not looking at the "pure" numbers, and many investors do not, they look at potential. They look at what the possibilities are. If you believe that space will be a significant part of the economy in 20 years, and that SpaceX will be a large participant, the current numbers do not mean a lot, this is not a large established company in a static industry. In 20 years the market cap of just the US could very well be…

Your TAM for "space" growing in 20 years from $3 billion to 20T honestly seems like quite the stretch. Starship has been in development for about 10 years and it's still not even been to orbit. I have a hard time seeing that sector grow by a factor of 6,666X in 20 years. It's not been growing anywhere near that despite SpaceX's incredible innovations and price reductions.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#543

Post by rlt »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #425
NoahZuniga wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging a pension fund by how it performs in a bull market seems wrong. Like their main job is to limit your downside from market crashes (if they're not doing that then they offer nothing compared to an index fund), so its strange to not include 2008 crisis (or .com bubble popping). Checking this shows that the top 2 performers in this graph lost more money (~8%) in 2008 than the bottom 2 (~2%)

Judging a pension by how it performs in 2008 seems wrong. Like their main job is to perform well over long periods of time compared to other funds. Checking this shows that 12 years is longer than 1 year, and thus is a better metric.

It’s almost like you can each pick data to fit your narrative.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#544

Post by mavhc »

nolok wrote: post #158
eberkund wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say that? Chinese EVs?

Not parent, but Tesla is currently worth more in the stock market than the ten biggest car seller combined That's with falling sales, with no new product in sight and their latest release a big dud (despite SpaceX ordering massive amount of it to prop it up), and with a pricing and thus margin that is going to be massively lowered or beaten by Chinese ev. Protectionism by the US can only go so far, the US alone doesn…

They're second in the race to self driving after Waymo, they're making the Cybercab, seems to be working out great as their cars will cost way less than Waymo's

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#545

Post by mavhc »

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #410
tristanj wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from. Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these pro…

"You just don't understand bro" has been the trite handwaving of criticism for a over decade now. It already wore out when the bitcoin bros kept saying it to all their critics. > I can tell you are in the unaware group, since you don't mention nor analyze two of SpaceX's world-changing products (Starship and Starlink Mobile). Just because I did not mention Starship by name does not mean it's not in the reply. And Sta…

Self driving is already here, so far the remaining bugs are pretty much just noticing thin objects and parking in restricted spaces

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#546

Post by mavhc »

Tepix wrote: post #255
swingboy wrote: post #226

Apologies for the naivety, but, why is SpaceX valued so high? Starlink? Are rockets really a lucrative business? Don’t get me wrong, being able to send objects up into orbit is cool, but is it $1.8T cool?

We know that xAI (with X) is struggling. SpaceX is growing quite slowly. You could argue that Starship is likely to somewhat accelerate growth. Starlink is doing well but also growing somewhat slow. A more rational valuation would be 900b-1000b. The rest is Musk and FOMO.

SpaceX already dominates the global industry, there's barely anything left to grow into at current $/kg, but of course reducing $/kg by 10x means 10x more cargo to launch

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#547

Post by kortilla »

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #370
kortilla wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. A significant portion of their valuation is based on this. The spacex private stock price moved significantly based on this data center narrative. > And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP. This is ig…

> There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. There are roughly 100,000 ships at sea. There are roughly 15,000 planes in the sky. The remote internet markets are remote because either A) exceedingly few people live there, or B) exceedingly poor people live there. (And usually, both at the same time) This just isn't a big market. That's why the te…

> There are roughly 100,000 ships at sea. There are roughly 15,000 planes in the sky.

That’s pretty great for price range of $500-$2000/mo.

> The remote internet markets are remote because either A) exceedingly few people live there, or B) exceedingly poor people live there. (And usually, both at the same time)

This is incorrect. Its usually just places people live that are difficult to reach with good telecom infrastructure because of lower income and/or lack of a good business infrastructure for internet. This includes the US that was frequently over capacity on Starlink in essentially the entire southeastern US for over a year when I was trying to get it there early on.

I suspect you don’t realize that “cell phone coverage” != “good internet”. You usually only need to go about 10-20 miles out of town before all fiber/DSL/cable evaporates. The cell coverage in an area like that isn’t the good kind you get in the city. You’ll get 5-10mbps down and brutal data caps.

Starlink is popular in the Philippines, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia, and even Europe for a reason.

> That's why the telecom giants haven't bothered.

Telecom giants can’t bother because their costs don’t scale the right way due to tech limitations. A LEO sat can provide coverage in remote/sparse places AND coverage in denser money making places all in one orbit. A fiber on the other hand can’t serve the Aleutian chain and then the Congo 15 minutes later.

> To justify a trillion dollar valuation you're gonna need a billion users.

No you don’t. I think you ignored the part of my message about a significant portion of the valuation being from datacenters in space (a yet unproven market).

> SpaceX would be better off putting fiber into the ground in Africa.

No they wouldn’t. This doesn’t work. I recommend you look up why this has failed every time so far and why Africa is served by undersea cables to coastal cities.

Fiber is terrible for places with poor infrastructure. If there aren’t people adequately maintaining a power grid, there sure as hell aren’t people to maintain even more delicate fiber and required last mile infrastructure.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#548

Post by kortilla »

Topfi wrote: post #346
kortilla wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. A significant portion of their valuation is based on this. The spacex private stock price moved significantly based on this data center narrative. > And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP. This is ig…

>> The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent. > No they aren’t. That’s exactly what IRIS [0] is though… [0] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...

IRIS is a 290 sat constellation that doesn’t have any proven sats in orbit or a user terminal. The capacity even if they deliver what they claim on paper is not a Starlink equivalent.

The tyranny of being in MEO/LEO is that your sats are not overhead at least half of the time.

Lower capacity, higher latency, and worse coverage makes it more of a viasat improvement than anything like a starlink equivalent.

They fumbled by not trying to provide global coverage.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#549

Post by sehansen »

scoofy wrote: post #510
lefra wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are asking for money to extract oil (and hopefully sell it for more money). I don't see why the oil well being already drilled or not should make a difference if I don't want to invest in CO2-producing endeavours.

The point is that in the secondary market, the oil will be extracted regardless. By you not participating, you actually increase the return on equity for others, making it more profitable. Buying the stock does not add money into the business. The area for disincentivizing oil production is the political sphere, not the financial sphere. Refusing to participate in secondary market ownership does almost less than noth…

By increasing the return for other investors I'm increasing the cost of capital for the oil exploration companies. So: Yes, not buying shares in existing oil companies will (ever so marginally) decrease oil exploration.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#550

Post by sehansen »

dijit wrote: post #499
Gomotono wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is 3x poorer than germany and has half of our GDP. Russia has power because of their nuclear arsenal which is unclear how well it is maintained. But no we can fill up and build faster and better than russia. And the war against ukraine is hurting russia now for over 1000 days. Russia even has to go so far to reduce mobile and internet. This alone hurts Russia as a whole.

"We don't need to spend more" isn't an observation, it's a bet. And you're betting with other people's lives. We’ve already ran this experiment. After Crimea we set ourselves a 2% floor; three countries hit it in 2014, SEVEN by 2022, and we only all cleared it in 2025. A bar we set for ourselves, missed for eleven years. And the moment we finally hit it, what did we do? we admitted it was never going to be enough and…

The NATO 2% goal is quite a bit older than the Russian invasion of Crimea, dating back to at least the NATO summit in Riga in 2006. In any case ramping up our production of artillery shells and other munitions needed by Ukraine would definitely be beneficial to us in the rest of Europe. Both in order to end the war faster and get going rebuilding Ukraine, but also to stimulate the somewhat struggling EU economy.
Post reply on HN