csoups14

Your comparison rests on the idea that politics is an elastic marketplace where people are not bringing in priors when deciding on who to vote for. It completely ignores that at least part of that market is propagandized to the point where no matter how you sell you will not make the sale. Voters overwhelmingly support policies that Democrats support when polled. You can blame Democrats for not finding an effective way to sell those policies. I think your comparison is far too simplistic to be useful.

When the history of this time is written I believe it will be exceedingly obvious that the MAGA and the Republican Party were an incurable cancer and there was nothing that the Democratic Party could have done within the context of the existing political structure to stop it from spreading. They might have had one opportunity to avoid it by focusing more on supporting individuals and less on supporting financial institutions in 2008, but the political context of that time was entirely different. At some point it is worthless to blame one political party for another driving the country off a cliff. Yes, they should have done things differently in hindsight, but there is little value in holding them accountable for information they did not have at the time.

Oopsy daisy

> you can get more done in an hour than a normal person can get done in a day.

Motion, not progress. So much talk of 100x and 1000x engineers, so little to show for it.

I'd rather honestly than false confidence, there's something admirable about being this clear for sure

That has more to do with geopolitics than it does the current price of memory.

An inability to think critically is not the same thing as a lack of critical thinking in a specific context. Would you agree that you think critically in some contexts and make emotion-driven decisions in others? I know I do, as much as I try to apply critical thinking universally.

Drop a couple names, I'd like to know who is leveraging AI well

Do you have a source for that? Are they raising more money or receiving more money for AI-oriented products or are they actually making more money on consumer/B2B end products?

In reality unfortunately it likely means mills will sit idle or shut down entirely. Prices might come down a little bit hopefully

How exactly do you think those authoritarians are identifying whose freedoms are to be taken away? Or do you think all of the datamining and Palantir contracts are for lolz? Two sides of the same coin.

Knowing the types that gravitate towards HOA boards and the like, I take the least charitable view possible. Simply a system that is ripe for abuse and it's hard to justify any of the use cases as necessary. We've ceded control of our lives entirely to tyrants both small and large.

Every day investors absolutely buy these shares; these price targets are publicly available and SpaceX shares are equally publicly available. You've claimed everyone who is disagreeing with you in this thread is not providing a coherent argument. Have a great day mate.

> If individual investors are buying shares and getting blown up, that’s their problem. Invest and due your own research.

This is simply absurd. Of the investment banks that helped SpaceX IPO, Goldman Sachs has their price target at $205 (139x implied price to sales), JP Morgan at $225 (152x implied P/S), Deutsche Bank at $255 (173x implied P/S), Morgan Stanley at $300 (203x implied P/S), and Raymond James at $800 (542x implied P/S). It's the 1920s all over again; publicly pump and privately sell into the demand you're creating. I'm guessing you're perfectly fine with this behavior from the largest market participants?

You have your opinions on what the discussion should be, clearly other people have different opinions. Why should your opinion be weighted more highly than theirs?

I think you're viewing this from the perspective of someone who has a functioning brain and plentiful concepts and ideas that aren't being built because you're labour-constrained. Companies like Meta simply don't have productive uses for all of that human + AI labour. Meta spends tens of billions a year paying people to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. If the idea well you're going to is running dry, AI with a smaller number of humans can slop out the stuff you do want to build more efficiently is their implicit argument, especially when you don't care about quality (as is the case with Meta). Layoffs are also being used to tell a story around efficiency to investors while companies wait for the billions they're plowing in AI actually show profit.