Threat of imminent violence clearly falls on one side of the line. There are other cases that are on the border and you can't judge so easily.
5,019 karma · joined October 8, 2011
But is it fair to curtail speech because someone might perceive it as a threat? That question applies to the government as well as to individuals. I think it has to be resolved on a case-by-cases basis by courts.
Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does the government. The government can urge, warn, criticize, request, and share public-health information.
Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument.
But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive."
So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.
Of course if you display for example, a spin dial like old telephones that has a particularly quirky way to use, them this doesn't apply.
I think one reason is that flat UI is super easy. Skeuomorphic is extremely hard to get right, and if you don't get it right it looks super tacky. Most people who have the word "designer" in their job title don't have the artistic skills needed to pull it off. This is why most designers are opposed to skeuomorphic.
Somewhere in between is the right approach. The NeXTSTEP UI from the late 1980s is what we need to return to. It still looks beautiful today: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/openstep42
Here, “technicals” means technical analysis signals rather than the company’s business fundamentals. In other words, Burry is saying the stock could rise because of chart-based trading, momentum, and market behavior—not because investors think SpaceX is truly worth that much based on revenue, profits, or other fundamentals.
How long can the hype be maintained? TSLA is still maintaining its hype, judging by its P/E ratio.
Key bullets:
What Iran gets:
* The U.S. agrees to release $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets, including via direct cash transfers, cooperation among regional countries, and financial credit lines.
* Washington, in coordination with its regional allies, would prepare a reconstruction and development plan for Iran, to be negotiated and agreed with Tehran within 60 days.
What the US gets:
* Tehran agrees that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons.
* Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities.
* The United States agrees to allow Iran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium on Iranian soil under a future comprehensive agreement.
* Iran’s nuclear programme, uranium enrichment activities and mechanisms for handling its stockpile of highly enriched uranium would be negotiated within 60 days of the memorandum and addressed in a final agreement.
So basically the same as when the war started.
xAI is a failed company, as is X. Their merger into SpaceX is basically a scam. Elon Musk justified this by saying he is going to send xAI servers into space using SpaceX. This is an unproven idea, not ready for investing.
That's already very high. Their profitable businesses are (1) Starlink and (2) Launching satellites. Starlink is growing revenue at maybe 50%, and revenue for launching satellites is growing maybe 10% annually.
But Goldman Sachs, which is leading the IPO process is telling investors that it expected SpaceX’s total revenue to reach $474 billion in 2030, up from $18.7 billion last year. That's 25x growth of revenue in just 4 years.
SpaceX lost $4.3 billion in the first three months of the year alone. Revenue was $4.7 billion and growing, but it was far lower than that of tech giants like Meta, which brought in $56.3 billion in the same period and has a stock market valuation of $1.4 trillion.
If this was only impacting folks who choose to invest in SpaceX that would be one thing. But they are forcing SpaceX down the throats of anyone who has a 401(k) and down the throats of anyone who has index funds such as QQQ, and Nasdaq suspended their normal rules for including SpaceX.
Goldman Sachs--they are leading the IPO process--told a potential investor that it expected SpaceX’s total revenue to reach $474 billion in 2030, up from $18.7 billion last year. So 25x in just 4 years. Morgan Stanley, which is also working on the IPO, said in an analysis shared with investors that it anticipated SpaceX’s revenue would hit $3.4 trillion by 2040.
I hope Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are sued out of existence for perpetuating this fraud.