ywvcbk

Assuming it's share price does not drop significantly because of that.

> what an index describes vs what investors prefer

What makes you think S&P 500 did not become the most popular index (instead of full market ones) because of the rigid entry criteria and and rules for weights.

Amongst other things the weighting is not even based on the market cap.

> The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation

That's tangential. The valuation is based on supply and demand, nothing else.

Amongst other things the supply part of the equation will be low because all these companies are only to make a very small proportion of their shares available on the public markets.

> The purpose of an index is to provide a benchmark of the market

Usually a subset of the market based on specific criteria. Total market indexes and funds exist, maybe there is a reason S&P 500 despite its "strict" inclusion criteria is more popular than them?

> There is plenty of money in the market

Their float will be very small so yes, the value of their shares that anyone could buy at even the most optimistic valuations would be tiny compared to most public megacaps.

> Btw I don’t really know how index funds work, but if they need to track the index as closely as possible, they will all have to buy those stocks on a certain day, no?

S&P wouldn't include them until they became profitable and even if they did they wouldn't even be in the top 20.

> accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions

Define what that means? The weights are based on the value of shares available publicly, not market cap. So even if included SpaceX wouldn't even be in the top 20 and have a lower weight than Johson & Johson.

A lot of what people are saying here seems to be based on a misconception of what S&P 500 is supposed to be. Maybe it became the most popular index because of those rigid rules?

Neither? What makes you think it was supposed to be a benchmark for either.

Amongst other thing weights are based on the value of shares that are traded publicly, not market cap.

S&P 500 weights are based the value of shares available on the public market not the market cap. Based on that SpaceX will be nowhere near the top 10.

Do you think their valuations wouldn't fall dramatically if they were willing to float a significant proportion of their shares on the market anytime soon.

> out unstable, illiquid questionable

So Space X, OpenAI, Anthropic? Those are perfect examples.

It's unlikely their valuations could survive the IPO if their float wasn't extremely low.

> top 20 largest companies in the US market

You do know that S&P weights are based on the free float and not the market cap. So based on that SpaceX etc. will not be in the top 20. The total value of shares of Johnson & Johnson available on the public market will be much higher than that of SpaceX/etc. based on their current valuations.

> the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market

Well it was never intended to reflect the full "actual market".

> no longer an adequate benchmark

According to your definition it never was. However there were and are plenty of other index benchmarks which serve different purpose. Its just that S&P 500 managed to become the most popular one, why did it happen if it was always inherently flawed?

Like they didn't even add Microslop for 8 years...

You want to turn S&P 500 to a total market index. Why? That was never its purpose.

> Because the index needs accuracy

So you are saying that S&P 500 should be merged with Russell 2000 or rather just become a fully market index to be more "accurate". You do know that's something that exists already, having different indexes makes perfect sense and consumers can pick the ones they want based on their risk profile and preferences.

> most civilization changing companies from the benchmark

It took Google 2 years to get into S&P 500. For Microslop it was 8 years (!). So what's new?

> which is more than enough time for the market to find a price

The price markets find would still inevitably be influence by the knowledge that the demand would increase massively in a few months.

> inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth

Or stable and sustainable growth. Whatever else SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic valuations are price in extremely optimistic growth. But yeah, I do see a point that including adequately priced growth stocks could be a net benefit but of course accouting for the actual valuation would turn index funds into managed ones.

Thankfully its not an issue at all since there is Nasdaq 100.

Modern China isn't exactly totalitarian though and US is rapidly converging with China in that regard anyway.

I don't think this is true at all? A ballistic missile is way harder and more expensive to shutdown (they are flying at Mach 5-10 while you can outrun that type of drone with a mid tier car on the freeway)

Shahed is very primitive in general and not hard to shot down but because its extremely cheap it can be used to overwhelm any type of air defenses. Wasting $4 million to destroy a $50k drone doesn't scale at all.

They didn't invent it quickly enough i.e. they generally lagged behind Eurasian civilizations by several thousand years so by 1500 they were approximately still stuck in the bronze age or so.

Yes, exactly, that's what I said. There is significant overhead but is it the only or the main reason why these apps are so slow and inefficient? It's perfectly easy to write slow and inefficient code in C++ as well...

No, compared to everything else in those apps. i.e. if they are writing extremely bloated Electron apps why would the native version be less slow and bloated? I mean Electron's overhead is mostly fixed (it's still a lot but its possible to keep memory usage we below 1 GB or even 500 BB even for more complex applications).

The overhead added by Electron is hardly that significant at this point, you can still use it to write significantly more efficient apps

It's not self evident this is caused by regulation.

And regulation generally certainly works when it come to regulating and splitting up monopolies and oligopolies, workers right and etc. (US has plenty of both even if its occasionally idiosyncratic)

Codex is opensource though and there are quite a few forks already.

> You can't use 100-400 years ago as the counterexample

Or just a year or two ago?

> https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl...

> claimed that Chinese models trained on it without permission

That's extremely rich coming from Anthropic, though? Well they would know all about it of course...

Exception in those days it took a lot of time and effort to build software and you couldn't just do it by answering a few multi choice questions on a phone.

> Brixton riots.

That was more than 40 years ago. I was wondering whether bringing up 2011 might make sense (since it was over 10 years ago, the riots weren’t as politically motivated etc.) but this is just something else..

Except it can’t happen in that environment. Twitter always was and is inherently unsuitable for any semi-productive discussion due its format.

However that is besides the point any discussion in such “free” environment will be drowned by noise and bigotry (from both sides). Pretending otherwise is silly.

More like the fact that Elon Musk literally bought himself a cabinet position and basically the president himself in almost the most blatant and transparently corrupt way possible.

> it's sad

Even more sad when people lack the concept of nuance and see the world as entirely black and white.

Yes? To an almost extreme degree?

I don’t recall Zuckerberg ever buying himself a cabinet position. Do you?

> This was not why freedom of the press was granted

Not about this specific point but people making these decisions back in the 1700s and 1800s were at least as flawed as us (arguably much more) and made some extremely horrible/stupid choices in hindsight.

Treating them as effectively infallible religious figures is well.. just that.

Especially if we consider that the interpretation of what freedom of speech (and press) meant was extremely narrow by modern standards well into the late 1800s and beyond.

> there is a two-tiered system targeting white people. That's obviously a myth

Except… That’s obviously not what Farage et al are saying.

The claim is that white nationalists (verging on fringe(?) neo-nazi) protestors and rioters were treated more harshly than protestors and rioters belonging to other races or subscribing to other (also violent and radical) political (or religious) ideologies.

It does not seem obvious at all to me that this is clearly a myth.