i'm starting a new trend: ask every person that is so certain about the negative outlook how big their short position is. so how big is your short position? please let us know.
—Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
I am not invested in anything except popcorn to watch it burst;)
Yes you can say you're honest and stuff but does it mean anything if you can go broke from honesty.
that's literally the exact opposite of what i'm saying - literally read my responce to comments up chain.
> i'm starting a new trend: ask every person that is so certain about the negative outlook how big their short position is. so how big is your short position? please let us know.
To me people with short positions likely be bending the truth. To you they are honest. Funny
There's a reason why investing must be declared in many situations. and it is because they are a conflict of interest not proof of honesty
> conflict of interest not proof of honesty
What exactly do you think disclosing a conflict of interest is if not honesty...............
That's the reason in many cases disclosure is mandatory and not disclosing it is illegal. To let people know to take it with a grain of salt.
True honesty = no conflict of interest. Judging things for what they are not what bucks they can make you if you spin it right
Lol bro you're making up the definitions the definition just to suit your weird perspective.
> By definition, a "conflict of interest" occurs if, within a particular decision-making context, an individual is subject to two coexisting interests that are in direct conflict with each other ("competing interests"). This is important because under these circumstances, the decision-making process can be disrupted or compromised, affecting the integrity or reliability of the outcomes.
The decision is what to write on HN and integrity is compromised if "writing truth" is in conflict with "get richer" which can happen if you invest in a sus biz.
We can pretend you are the rare exception that speaks the truth even if it means you go broke but even then it just proves the rule
This is more mantra - professional shorts exist and they make money. So either you know something (in which case you'd be mum about it and just placing your bets) or you know nothing.
No amount of hype from your side can make it a non-bubble market when OpenAI and other companies make wild and impossible to fulfill promises for infrastructure buildup that rely on vague promises of circular money lending between AI SaaS and infra companies.
"The bubble is both obvious and also completely unpredictable".
Makes sense.
But if we lay off the bong for a bit and think soberly, then no, knowing that certain economic process is not sustainable and will eventually collapse, but not being able to profit from it is not the same as saying every bubble would pop at the heat death of the universe, billions years for now. It's so not the same that the very comparison should be immediately perceived as absurd.
You can't both talk about "professional shorts" and use it as an argument against somebody who is not a financial professional. This argument is invalid because not every person who is skeptical about current AI companies' perspectives is willing or able to become a professional short just to make a point on it. One can have a perfectly valid argument and still not be a professional short based on it.