> Unfortunately, it'll pick up recommendations from watching one thing one time, so watching that one video your weird uncle sent you is enough to pollute your algorithm with his weirdo shit.
* Copy URL
* Open new private window
* Paste URL: trim pp and/or si parameters, which are a form of tracking
> Spacex, on the other hand, is way ahead of any of its competitors in the invention and building of real world things […]
Like going to Mars? Like xAI and Grok?
Perhaps if SpaceX actually focused on "invention and building of real world things" your point would be stronger? I mean: why exactly did SpaceX purchase xAI?
Like building and flying the most reliable rocket in history while launching more frequently than any other rocket in history. They make an F9 second stage every couple of days.
Perhaps if Musk/SpaceX actually focused on the (alleged) purpose of the company your point would be stronger.
Further, to channel Warren Buffett, what moat does SpaceX have to prevent competitors for doing the same thing? (A sibling comment mentions China catching up.)
They were ahead of nation states, but China has already closed the gap (wrt reusable vehicles). Musk squandered the first mover advantages of Tesla and SpaceX for individual power and wealth instead of the long term success of those enterprises. And so, it’s not unreasonable for folks to say Tesla and SpaceX were just tools for a grifter to become the wealthiest person in the world; that’s what he was optimizing for, based on the evidence. Musk cares about power, control, and himself, broadly speaking.
Does it matter in the long run? Probably not. Musk will be like Gates with more wealth; speaking circuit while others build at scale (China is ~1/3 of global manufacturing capacity).
Also his video "Investing in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)":
> If you can get in on the ground floor of an IPO, that is getting an allocation in the initial share offering before the stock starts trading, there is evidence that you are likely to make a profit; IPOs tend to be underpriced. While this might seem like an obvious way to easy profits, there are a few crucially important things for you to consider.
And perhaps the episode of the podcast he co-hosts on IPOs:
> We’ve previously compared IPOs to lotteries that are prone to inflated valuations and low returns. Today we welcome “Mr. IPO,” Professor Jay Ritter onto the show for a deeper dive into IPO performance, for his insights into SPACs, and to hear his research into why economic growth doesn’t correlate with stock returns. Early in the episode, Jay unpacks how long-term IPO returns perform against first-day trading. While exploring the role that venture capital plays in tech IPOs, Jay talks about why negative earnings don’t affect tech IPOs in the short-term before sharing how skewness factors tend to impact young companies. Reflecting on how IPOs are usually underpriced, Jay discusses how the interests of companies are not aligned with the interests of IPO underwriters. After looking into IPO allocation, Jay compares the 2020 ‘hot IPO market’ with the internet bubble of the late 90s. Later, we ask Jay about what special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) are and why they’ve exploded in recent years. His answers highlight their investing benefits, risks, and why SPACs might be a better option for companies than IPOs. We examine how SPACs have historically performed and then jump into our next topic; why economic growth isn’t a good indicator that a country is worth investing in. He touches on why returns don’t correlate with economic growth, the place of capital gains and dividend yields when investing abroad, and how innovations in an industry can lead to higher stock returns. We wrap up our conversation by asking Jay for his take on whether the stock market is efficient before hearing how he defines success in his life. Tune in to hear our incredible and informative talk with Jay Ritter.
Wow, I had tried submitting the same video but you have beaten me to it! Upvoted, hope that this reaches the main discourse of the site.
Personally, I have been a john bogle/passive investing fan after reading some books about investing and I always thought that they were a nice aggregate but the corruption within the nasdaq and s&p to bypass their own laws or bend their laws for these private corporations is bad
I saw some comments in the video like: " As an existing private holder of SpaceX - heck yeah I want an IPO, brilliant exit opportunity. As a retail client - ain't no way I am gonna be left holding that bag, no thanks! "
Since Index funds investors are forced to buy things in Index funds, this is gonna be just an exit strategy for these private companies and we would be just left holding the bags
People within the comments are feeling like they have lost faith within the institutional markets (a bit myself included)
I feel like a bubble will come which will impact a lot of us as these IPO happens.
(this isn't financial advice), I will look more towards semi passive investing funds like dimensional, more than anything, it is to prevent grift like this from taking place. These private companies are essentially grifting the passive index fund and its investors.
I am really pissed at a lot of things right now, Corruption and hype seems to be the only two things people are caring about. I genuinely wonder what humanity will think looking back in these moments, It's a somewhat depressing thought.
John Bogle (rest in peace) would be extremely displeased by all of this if he was alive. The world might start losing faith within the institutional investments due to these events further increasing the gap between rich and poor and the people who lose from all of these would be normal people and that impact, even if not direct, will indirectly hurt the normal public the most rather than these billionaires who make money from these mechanisms.
Point Nemo (and related points) is also interesting:
> […] The oceanic pole of inaccessibility, also known as Point Nemo, is located at roughly 48°52.6′S 123°23.6′W[21] and is the place in the ocean that is farthest from land. It represents the solution to the "longest swim" problem.[22] […]
"The area is so remote that, since no regular marine or air traffic routes are within 400 kilometres (250 mi), sometimes the closest human beings are astronauts aboard the International Space Station when it passes overhead.[23][24]
"
The SLR-like cameras have a bunch of manual modes so you can 'force' them to get something captured, and you can then perhaps 'fix it in post'.
Modern tech allows more people to capture more things more easily, but when the automation fails there aren't really many manual modes to fall back on.
> We want to encourage people to produce written output with minimal friction. Barriers to writing--and especially barriers to producing documentation--should be minimized. Writing well is difficult enough!
What about something like AsciiDoc (or reStructuredText)?
The problem is that proposed Markdown alternatives are targeting a vanishingly small niche of scenarios: for almost all simple writing Markdown is good enough, and for anything too complicated for Markdown, people will use HTML or LaTeX/Typst. The in-betweens just don't seem to have a reason to exist.
> Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered […]
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." — Donald Trump, June 16, 2015
* Copy URL
* Open new private window
* Paste URL: trim pp and/or si parameters, which are a form of tracking
reply