ncallaway

Was the parent comment edited, because it does have a couple of examples in it

Okay, but if someone is going to invest money into companies they need some way of deciding what they think a company is likely to do in the future.

Are these kinds of reports mostly a lot of window-dressing around a gut-feel about what might happen in the future? Yea, of course. But, there's not really other options. Pretty much all the other options for predicting how much money a particular company is going to make in the future will also boil down to a gut-feel.

Morningstar does think it's a possibility that Starship ends up being highly successful as a reusable platform and that orbital data centers end up being very successful, they just assign a 7% chance for that outcome.

Your sentence was the direct response to the question:

> Yeah, but is SpaceX actually worth $1T

The question and context of your response was about SpaceX's present value. Given the context, I think my response was absolutely a fair reading of your response.

> Reading comprehension, people.

Indeed.

Would that be software used in a product? I don't think that would qualify?

> Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.

It seems crazy to me to make a comparison between a company being valued on it's current profit and then to say it's reasonable for another company to have the same market cap because it could eventually have the same profit.

I mean, that doesn't have to be how it works. You can have a both fixed amount of time, and the ability for a candidate to work in whatever environment they want.

It's a testament to how much American companies have been fucking over their own reputations that people would view them as not "better or worse" than an extension of the CCP.

A decade ago, just that kind of comparison would've been pretty unthinkable.

That’s Congress and they are.

The executive branch does not hold the power of the purse, and the fact that you can casually use that phrase in reference to the executive branch shows how far we’ve fallen as a country in a decade.

A very sad state of affairs.

> I would question the premise that all or even most of the productivity gains of any past technological improvement have accrued to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

That would be relevant if I stood for that premise, but I don't and I wasn't putting it forward.

I was responding to your earlier claim:

> But if you want the laws of supply and demand not to apply to you, that's what you're asking for.

I was disagreeing that this was what was being asked in the present moment. What was being asked in the present moment ("can we have a day off") is very similar to what was being demanded in the past.

In the past, workers demanded to share in the wealth and productivity that was being created through technological gains. And so, I agree with you, workers in the modern era have benefited massively from past technological gains. But that wasn't an accident. Those gains were earned through the blood and sweat of workers demanding to be included in those gains.

And so, to ensure that these present gains continue to be distributed more equally, we need to continue applying the pressure that was applied in the past.

But that's not a rejection of the the laws of supply and demand, it's at a social layer before the economics of supply and demand apply. It's at the political and social layer of how much work we expect an individual worker to put forward into society, which is a major factor in determining the amount of supply of work available.

It's a political decision—totally separate from a rejection of capitalism—of how many hours a "full week of work" is. It is not a rejection of capitalism to set the "full work week" to 48 hours, or to 40 hours, or to 32 hours.

Right, but a day off would reduce supply.

And 2 days off was not a system dictated by God, which we are obligated to keep in perpetuity (in fact, most religions dictate 1 day off, not 2).

So, we could, as a society, just choose to make a 32 hour workweek “full time”, and mandate overtime pay after that.

There’s no reason, even under capitalism that we must allow all of the productivity gains to accrue to the benefit of solely those at the top of an enormous pile of wealth.

In fact, I think if we choose to do that as a society, it will end horrifically.

Well, but if it’s the latter definition, then the AI didn’t train on their data, since the companies took possession of that data before doing a training run.

It’s only the former definition that would allow an AI model to have been trained on someone else’s data

I take my two little ones almost weekly to our small downtown area. The trip is usually a coffee shop, the bookstore, and a rotating third one (sometimes a candy shop sometimes the toy store, sometimes something else).

Anyway, we're an N=1 confirmation of that theory.

I don't think that's it at all.

If a user says: "how do I do X in your product", I think a response of "Hey, there's not a great way to do X right now. We're thinking about the best way to make that work in the product though, and want to better understand what you're trying to do and why you need to do X. Would you mind spending 30-45 minutes talking to us about your specific needs in exchange for a $XX incentive?" strikes me as very different from what you're describing

You can disable auto-updates for VS Code, and you can install older versions of it.

Ah, yea, I had gotten myself confused with on-die ECC and actual real ECC. Very frustrating.

I dunno, if they got ID #15, and the site shut down immediately after (for everyone), it doesn’t seem like a crazy stretch.

Like, if a page gets hundreds of thousands of visitors, then your assumption is reasonable. For a page that might get dozens of visitors over its lifetime, it’s a much less certain assumption

Couldn’t you just… get a framework without RAM and buy ECC memory separately?

Eh, it’s not going to be transitively problematic for Anthropic the way the supply chain risk designation would’ve been.

Amazon isn’t going to have to divest from Anthropic because of this. Yes, they probably won’t be able to get a contract with Raytheon, but that wasn’t the main risk of being tagged with the supply chain risk designation.

I do not think historians will write about the metaverse at all.

Maybe it'll be a case study in business schools for a while, but I think that'll be the extent of its legacy

It was so obviously a Nazi salute, and anyone denying it is lying. Either to themselves or to others.

> The "Nazi salute" was just a cringy rendition of the "my heart goes out to you" thing

Okay, you believe what you want, I guess.

> And the AfD isn't a neo-Nazi group.

Uh, huh. Sure.

Probably refering to his nazi salute, and support for far-right neo-nazi groups like AfD in Germany

You... simply cannot take the numbers from one war and blindly apply them to a totally different one. The comparison isn't apt for a number of reasons.

First, Russians are generally on the offensive, which means pushing into Ukrainian controlled territory.

Often, they are pushing into defensive lines that have had years of fortification.

Second, there are a lot more Russians in Ukraine. To kill 125k people, you have to find 125k people. It's a lot easier to find a Russian in Ukraine that it will be to find an IRGC soldier in Iran if there's an invasion and guerilla operations in response.

In Iraq after the conventional military phase, the US killed ~26k insurgents over the course of a decade (and also captured ~120k).

Iran is bigger than Iraq, has far more people than Iraq, and has much bigger logistical burdens for an invasion.

I could believe that the US Military is quite capable of running some small scale targeted operations within Iran successfully. We can probably pull off operations to do things like attempt to seize and secure uranium stockpiles if we know where they are (though such an operation could also go catastrophically badly, too).

I think the US Military could invade Iran and topple the regime, but it would be an enormous lift, and I think there's almost no chance we would have the political will to sustain the costs and casualties that a total invasion would entail.

You have to convince three sets of people to move any tanker through the Straight:

- the crew - the company - the insurer

The company has an obvious reason to take on some amount of risk to move a vessel through the Straight. However, both the crew and the insurer will be quite risk averse, so the Navy would need to demonstrate a very high success rate in intercepting both missiles and shaheds to convince those two other groups to say "yes".

The IRGC is 125k-150k people. Many of them are pot committed to the current government, because the IRGC has done... unforgivable things that a new government would be likely to punish.

Venezuela is also run by the same security apparatus and government as it was before. We didn't attempt to turn over the entire government.

> It's not a big threat to the US. The US is a net oil exporter, has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and, if absolutely necessary, Trump could make up with Canada so those oil imports restart.

The SPR is 58% full, so... not empty but also not all the way full.

Additionally, even though we're a net oil exporter, we're not insulated from the global oil market rates. Local producers aren't going to sell into America more cheaply than they can sell internationally, so if international rates spike, prices will go up domestically too.

If the Straight of Hormuz remains closed for an extended period of time, we'll definitely feel the pinch domestically.

A citizen is always someone who has a legal right to be in the country.

They may be imprisoned in the country if they have committed a crime, but a citizen always has a legal right to be in the country.

Most of them have promised to issue refunds to customers if and when they get refunded the money.

FedEx:

> Our intent is straightforward: if refunds are issued to FedEx, we will issue refunds to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges. When that will happen and the exact process for requesting and issuing refunds will depend in part on future guidance from the government and the court.

https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/international/us-tariff...

> I’m imagining a loitering munition-type drone that has some kind of targeting package loaded into it with different parameters describing what it should seek and destroy. Instead of waiting for intelligence and using human command to put the munition on target, it hangs out and then engages when it’s certain enough that it’s found something valid.

I'm sorry, you've just literally described a "killer robot" in more words.