2,300 karma · joined December 14, 2017
For a spread of 300 basis points that's still a very low probability, probably under 5%.
It's less revenue than Spotify.
It's nowhere near what should be necessary for a company to be "one one the most valuable companies in the world."
Elon knows this. He knows that the 1.5 T "valuation" is nonsense. The market for space launches is quite simply not that big. How many more Starlinks does the world need? What would you do if I gifted you a satellite?
The SpaceX valuation is predicted on hype for scientifically & economically illiterate ideas like "data centers in space."
Elon knows this. He knows that these indexing rules are the only way to keep the hype going and avoid a space-WeWork failed IPO.
The "official" unemployment number, the one now reported as 4.4%, basically only counts the "percent of people actively looking for work that can't find it, who have been looking for work for more that 15 weeks.
The number you are trying to capture is what the BLS calls "U-6". That number is defined as:
> total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
In other words, anyone that would like more work but can't get it. I encourage you to read the entire definition and footnotes at the link I shared. It's very interesting!
Right now U-6 is at 8%. During the 2007 recession it peaked at about 17%. [1]
That means a 6,000lb escalade creates 3x the road wear than a 4,500 wagoneer from 1990.
That's about what Google creates in free cash every 2 weeks.
Because if SpaceX were valued like a normal company, they would lose their money.
SpaceX, as technologically awesome as it is, simply cannot be that big of a company because the market for space launches is relatively small.
SpaceX is targeting an IPO at a valuation 500x earnings. They need to jump on the "AI" / datacenter bandwagon to even hope to sell that kind of valuation.
The whole "datacenters in space" thing is an answer to the question "what could require 1000x the satellite launches that we have now?"
It has nothing to do with what makes sense economically for datacenters!
Imagine the capillary/friction losses, the force required, and the energy use(!) required to pump ammonia through a football-field sized radiator panel.
Linus Pauling. Chemistry 1954, peace 1962.
- Google: +70%
- Nvidia: +49% - Apple: +7%
- Meta: Flat
- SHOP (closest comp): +19.41%
- Mercado Libre (international comp): +20.73%
So basically, the "tech world" is dividing itself, in the eyes of investors, into two camps: companies that will benefit from AI tailwinds and companies that will not. And all the money is going to the companies that will.
Amazon is more and more considered to be part of the latter group.
This is especially concerning of Amazon because it seems like AWS--the cash cow--has somehow missed becoming the cloud provider for AI compute needs.
As such, Amazon needs to give investors some reason to hold amazon stock. If you're not part of a rising tide, the only reason left is "we are very profitable."
So yeah, Amazon will have to cut costs to show more profitability and become further investable.
So yes, the layoffs have to do with AI...but not the way they are spinning it.
On one hand, he claims that he "fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them." And on the other hand he claims his layoff on "a global labor market with almost no guardrails."
So which is it: did he really work on problems no one else could solve, or was he replaced by cheap foreign labor?
Probably neither. The most likely scenario here is one of two things:
a) Amazon made a mistake by firing him. They laid off someone truly valuable.
b) He wasn't as valuable as he thinks he was. Those problems were not worth paying him a meaningful fraction of a million dollars a year (what an L7 makes at amazon).
What I can guarantee is that he wasn't replaced by a cheap, foreign, plug-and-play replacement.
It all makes sense when you realize the point of his tweet is that he's plugging his run for congress: so yeah, of course he's tapping in to the absolute worst nationalistic sentiment. Shame on him.
I've seen "the best." I've had what could be considered "life changing" success by most metrics (but irrelevant by SV-billionaire standards).
The lesson:
There are, in general, two groups of people you can work with. People that do what they say they are going to do, and people who don't.
People who don't do what they say they are going to do outnumber those that do by 20-1.
If you surround yourself with the first group, you're going to be ok. If you don't, most of your time and your organization's time will be spent not-doing, not-measuring, and not-advancing.
"The best" really is that simple, and the bar really is that low.
Of course, if you do what you say you're going to do, and you're incredibly smart, and you have vision, and (insert whatever you care for here) then yeah, you'll be the "best of the best"...but those things are legitimately not necessary for success.
Incredible (truly, incredible, world-class) engineers that somehow lack that final 10% of polish/naming/documentation that makes things...well, seriously usable.
I remember last time I tried them the bizarre hoops/documentation around database creation. I _think_ they solved that but I remember at the time it felt almost like I was getting looked down upon as a user. Ugh, you need clarity? how amateurish!
One type is the mega club. These are see-and-be-seen places. Ibiza. Vegas. Miami. The DJs are very famous, but often because they have a few EDM "hits"--not because of their selection or mixing skills. These places have tables, bottle service, and beautiful people. The DJs here often do nothing: they may have a USB drive that they press "play" on and then pretend to mix.
Then there's another class of club: the "indie" electronic music club. These places have djs whose skill is more about selection, mixing, and crowd/vibe management. The djs here often have respected production careers but often not.
What you do at these clubs is simply dance. Usually by yourself, listening to music. The best of these clubs will not blow out your hearing because the sound system is exquisitely tuned.
As an introvert, the second class of club sounds like it would be perfect for you!
As an aside, if you've never experienced a truly world-class DJ (of the second type, not the first), it's an incredible experience. Even if you find electronic music "boring", these people are absolute masters at taking you on an emotional journey.
The best way to experience this is at one of the top festivals. The second best way is at a club. The third best way is at home, with great headphones, and soundcloud/youtube dj sets. NOT spotify.
It doesn't think, it doesn't reason, and it doesn't listen to instructions, but it does generate pretty good text!
Basically, before an IPO, the underwriters take the company on a "roadshow" in which they pitch the IPO to potential buyers.
There's a hierarchy of these: the best are very large buyers that place large orders and trade seldom. Pensions, sovereign wealth funds, etc.
Those buyers then make offers ("I'll buy 50MM at $100"), which the bank uses to set the IPO price. The bank then gives them an allocation.
If you're a high (10MM+) net worth individual that banks with one of the underwriters, you can often get an allocation in an IPO. The richer you are, the more of an allocation you can get.
When an IPO pops, it's these people that get the benefit.
The benefit for the company is that the stock is owned by prime people the bank selected: you crucially _don't_ want to just sell to the highest bidder if they are going to dump the stock immediately after the pop (or that's the theory, at least). They have stable shareholders with a vision aligned with management.
The benefit to the bank is that they get to reward their customers with access to profitable trades--but the bank itself does not profit.
Boarding at the very beginning makes a huge difference.
It's a 30 minute chunk of time in which you get to relax. Once you're in your seat there really is nothing else to do. You can work, you can watch a movie, you can think, read a book.
No latent anxiety wondering when I should get up, no "I can't really focus on this book because I might have to get up any minute," etc.
For a relatively short flight (2 hours) it's a pretty meaningful % of time that becomes a lot more relaxing.
Spotify: up 380% since IPO
Service Now: 4,000%
Shopify: 685%
Meta: 1,600%
My two favorite shows ever are Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (w/ Alec Guinness), The Wire, The Simpsons seasons 1-8.
Also, isn't mixing SSRIs and MDMA a huge no-no, given the potential for a serotonin storm/serotonin syndrome?
What a fun, and joyful substance.
I took it as an adult: while partying, with my wife, at festivals.
Responsibly (test it first!). Not too much. Just a couple times a year.
I love it and has made my life better. But I'm glad I waited to "do drugs" until I was older and my brain and personality were a bit more settled.
My favorite thing about MDMA is that, while the experiences you have while on it are of course an "altered state of mind," those experiences are still your experiences.
I did, in fact, experience seeing my wife dancing freely and openly under scintillating lights and thinking: "wow."
I did in fact experience seeing two of my best friends talking with each other in a quiet corner of the festival and realizing "I love these people. They are special."
And because those experiences are real, they unlock a "register" which is now available even when stone cold sober.
A few weeks ago I was totally sober, in the middle of the day, when I saw two friends of mine (brothers) walking together having a discussion. And in my "MDMA" register I thought: "how special brotherhood is."
I'm certain not everyone who takes MDMA has experiences this good. I've been in spectacular settings and my age has afforded me the luxury of taking it with a good mindset.
But it's pretty fucking cool.
Datura can (and I'm sure does) fuck you up permanently. It's perfectly legal.
MDMA is far safer, but far more fun, and so illegal.
Alcohol is interesting in this context. Kind of fun, kind of dangerous.
In other words, what the govt is trying to minimize is not harm, but rather "incidence of mind-altered states" which reduces to "criminalize those substances that are so unambiguously delightful that if they were legal people would take them all the time, regardless of danger, risk, or health effects."
This also explains why psychiatric medicine sucks: it's not allowed to be fun! If it were fun, it would be prone to "abuse" (read: recreational usage). That results in an entire class of treatments being disallowed, and makes available only those where the side effects (constipation, brain fog, loss of libido, etc) are of greater magnitude then any mood-altering effects.
Bio:
- Late 30s.
- Long history of depression my entire life. "Melancholic" child. Bad drunk teenager. Suicidal in college (failed attempt).
- No drugs except alcohol until I was in my mid 20s.
I've been prone to major bouts of depression my entire life. I went to therapy multiple times a week for years and got on SSRI's towards the end of university as a response to a failed (but serious) suicide attempt.
SSRI's never did anything for me except make me feel like shit (and not be able to take one). Eventually I went off them and sort of got by, and I managed to stay safe by drinking no alcohol. Therapy twice a week was an utter waste of time and money.
Then, sort of on a whim, I grew some mushrooms at home with my then fiancée and we took them together. I was mid 20s and had no prior experience with any drug but alcohol. Not knowing what I was doing, we took a BIG dose. I had a trip that was fun at first and then became quite unenjoyable.
For the next twelve months I felt like myself again. The change was subtle but, over a long term, quite obvious.
After about 18 to 24 months, my depression came back. We took mushrooms again and the same thing happened. A year of well being in exhcange for 2 fun hours and 6 tough ones.
So about every two years I'll take a big (2-4g dry) dose of mushrooms and...it's like magic. I feel like myself again. I'm "back." Life is not happy, none of my problems go away, but I feel like I'm an agent in my own life as opposed to a spectator.
The well being lasts about a year or 18 months (less if I've been drinking alcohol). It's almost never as bad as when I was suicidal, but it still sucks. For me depression is like being a professional chef and one day your taste buds make everything taste like ash. Or a painter and one day you see colors less and less.
Last year I went into a VERY deep depression, so deep that I refused to take mushrooms until my wife basically forced me to. Same thing. The very next day I felt like "I was back."
Those things changed my life.
I've since had fun with other drugs maybe 5 times. Acid a couple times, molly a couple times. Cheap (wtf) fun for a half a day, but nothing like the impact mushrooms have on my mind.
I've had one bad trip while taking mushrooms recreationally. I don't understand who would take those things for fun, at night.
Strictly during the day, well-rested, with loved ones, and in nature!
I'm also convinced that the impact they have on me is purely chemical. It has nothing to do with "facing my demons" or "connecting with a higher spirit" or anything like that. I just get off my stupid rut.
"Neurons that fire together wire together" as they say, and when I'm depressed it's the stupid neurons that fire together. Mushrooms makes a whole different set fire, and fire hard, and that seems to be enough.
The deepeest lesson I've gotten while on shrooms is:
"I'm trying my best. Everything is actually fine."
Pretty good lesson.
We're just hovering for a second like Wile E Coyote.