McLaren_Ferrari

Generally if trends will be transformative you see it from the get go.

Zuckerberg keynote was received very coldly and the cartoonish avatars can't possibly be taken seriously in a working enviornment.

The whole metaverse can't be even defined as a space to work or play. If it's a space to play then how is it different than VR headsets and why it merits a whole world to upsell it as an ecosystem?

It completely destroys the mechanism of an auction. Especially an online auction

During an auction you always know the price and hence the bids are somewhat incremental. You can bid in 1$ increments or even lesser increments.

When the network is congested people put a fee on their transaction without knowing anything except that more = better.

It is a market failure. The time preference BS is something made up by "true believers" who think that "bad news is good news" because it supposedly supports the winner take all mindset that crypto enthusiast love.

Except when the winner is Ken Griffin, in that case we should stop playing , throw a tantrum and ask the refs for a redo lmao

The population is getting older too.

Music is the most age dependant business. It's literally impossible to discover your favorite song at age 35+ and it's most likely already buried in your brain forever between 14 and 20.

Same things for movies, franchises sell because there is a familiarity to it. Stuff that isn't franchise just doesn't sell. A possible exception would be biopics.

I predict a huuuge amount of high budget biopic to integrate revenues from franchises.

JFK, MLK, Reagan, Hendrix, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Eagles, Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan...they will all get a biopic with a budget of no less than 175M a pop.

It's common among all genders and platforms not just twitter. Disagreement exists

the "current thing" must be destroyed at all costs

Buybacks and dividends are always a good idea.

Companies should always do them, it puts the ball back into shareholders court. If Apple ever needs to shore up its supply chain they can do an equity raise by issuing stock, then shareholders can decide if they want to partake in it or not.

Shareholders should receive their capital back at regular intervals because the CEO can ask it back again.

The "building in public" line of thought is that business/engineering is not special and is subject to the same laws as regular social interaction.

Meaning familiarity, networking and feedback are vital for success.

On the other hand, even in regular social interactions if you disappear for a while and then show up some time later driving a Porsche or a Ferrari that trumps familiarity, networking and feedback.

I'd say unless you are sure to show up with something that is essentially a Home Run, then the familiarity, networking and feedback of the building in public will be a tad better.

In the end it's also about the individual's personality. If you are driven by the journey then building in public is essentially some sort of diary, whereas if you are driven by results it's only natural that like an athlete you just want the spotlight on you during decisive moments.

> I say that humanity needs more long–term projects, not more short–term consumerism.

Right. If this is so crystal clear then you'd not have any problems finding people who'd put up their own money instead of extorting them.

Crystal clear + you'd have to convince a bunch 90 year olds it should not be too hard...then everybody is happy. Even scammers have the decency to convince old people to give them their money as opposed to extorting them under the threat of violence .

For sure when I am 90 I'd do everything in my power to avoid being sucked into paying for stuff that I'll never get to see or use. Old people are not jailed for tax evasion, even today...so I guess unless something changes if I get to that ripe age it would be the same.

Oh cmon. The money of regular taxpayers was the first in and the quality of life for them was the last out.

The investment only started paying real dividends in terms of generalized quality of life in the 2010s.

You want to say it was 35 years and not 40? Fine. If you are a guy who was in his 50/60 back in the 1970s then 40-35-30 or even if I give you 20 years if you consider that the investment totally repaid itself when the early adopters started buying GPS (which is a very bad way to calculate it )....it's all the same. You didn't see improvements in your quality of life because given life expectancy back then chances are you'd not be having a life at all (and this includes when the very early adopters bought it)

Except Buffett is not referring to index investing but to stock picking. Mostly it's long with leverage on a single stock.

Most likely Tesla, GME, AMC.. If it's not stocks then it's crypto.

> I'm not sure why anyone us would put a lot of weight into their opinion about it.

It's not about Soros opinion. It's about his track record predicting outcomes of political movements and how those impact the money markets.

With BTC is even easier because the price is a sign of the health of the socio-political movement, whereas back in the days he had to rely on the news on the ground about German re-unification or European Union coming together and adopting a common currency.