> We do it for food, oil, weapons, vaccines, you name it.

Much easier to have a reserve of X, if X can be put in a warehouse and transported later.

After reading comments here, I think that US has plenty of cheap housing… but… cheap housing is in places where people don’t want to live. (Demand is low, price is low)

If you actually plan to use your own money to build a reserve of housing, better double-tripple check if anybodyz will want to live there.

Wealth was quite consolidated when most population were peasants.

The wealth distribution in England in the 1500s had the top 1% controlling roughly 25% of the wealth.

The top 1% in America today controls roughly 32% of the wealth.

Tell us more about the peasants who got significant time off because the ruling class knew endless work resulted in an unhappy populace.

https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

Not changing rules would seem quite obvious and correct at the same time.

It is not obvious that excluding SpaceX is (1) better for index investors or (2) what index investors/buyers want. Passive index investors buy the whole market. For better or worse, SpaceX is (will be) part of the whole market.

Most indices will be buying proportionate to float, which is probably the correct thing to do. Only the Nasdaq 100 isn't float-weighted, and there's just less money in that index than the S&P500 (even with outsized weighting, Nasdaq 100 indexers will buy about 0.5% as much SpaceX as S&P500 indexers).

Eventually buying spacex is obvious and correct. Buying prematurely is questionable.

It is not obvious that SpaceX's price will fall (and not instead rise) between the IPO and whatever date you have in mind.

But it good illustration of why valuation is so high

Because people make dumb choices? That I would agree.

I would refrain from calling it “dumb”. Just different. Maybe a bit of a hype thing.

If you're buying stocks based on hype, you are dumb.

Yes, because in all likelihood an artificial train is coming

Building on that futurism.

We might design organic brain extensions, so people just become smarter, making LLMs obsolete. (Brain-Bluetooth interface for additional cost)

Track record would matter if we would need to trust him. (E.g. he knows some hidden insider data which stays secret, while he shares only a conclusion without must justification)

Track record is not relevant if it is a prediction with all the arguments laid out in the open.

Which is our situation closer to?

Facts can be cherry picked. As an example of Ed's stuff see:

>Anthropic Is Bleeding Out ...Anthropic is very likely losing money on every single Claude Code customer, and based on my analysis, appears to be losing hundreds or even thousands of dollars per customer. (Ed, 10 months ago) https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/

vs

>Mind-Blowing Growth Is About to Propel Anthropic Into Its First Profitable Quarter The startup expects a 130% revenue surge to $10.9 billion in the June quarter and its first operating profit, defying skeptics of the AI boom (wsj, yesterday)

If you look at Ed's piece there the facts are correct but he just moans about costs and ignores the growth. Most of his stuff is kind of like that.

> expects

Is bearing a lot load here.

It is a press release with a goal to create hype.

I.e. it has no relation to “facts”

… unless they would also share underlying numbers (e.g. cost/profit per customer, and why they think some things will increase)

Still, one can buy lot of interesting problems with that money.

XZ attacker spent half a year earning trust, doing real maintenance.

Different order of magnitude effort spent during XZ attack.

Frontend has lower barrier of entry and more appeal for beginners, so its bell curve might have its left edge is thicker. It impacts the avg of problems and culture of dealing with them

More appeal I agree because it's easier to see useful results and iterate quicker. Lower barrier of entry I disagree with strongly; if the barrier to entry were so low I don't know why I've worked with so many otherwise-talented backend devs that can't wrap their heads around the frontend to save their lives. Frontend forces you to deal with real-world customer problems sooner rather than later; performance is more important, it has to work on more than one environment, you have a frame budget. It's like saying game development has a low barrier to entry; you might be able to get started quickly but you will run into constraints unless you learn fast. On the backend you can just pay another dollar for a VPS twice the size.