el_nahual

I mean, that's what the yield is. The spread between what the bond pays and the Risk-Free Rate (Treasury) tells you what the market thinks the risk of default is.

For a spread of 300 basis points that's still a very low probability, probably under 5%.

(For those who don't get it, "My kingdom for ___" is from Richard III: "my horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse")

15B in revenue is less than what AirPods sell in 6 months.

It's less revenue than Spotify.

It's nowhere near what should be necessary for a company to be "one one the most valuable companies in the world."

Elon knows this. He knows that the 1.5 T "valuation" is nonsense. The market for space launches is quite simply not that big. How many more Starlinks does the world need? What would you do if I gifted you a satellite?

The SpaceX valuation is predicted on hype for scientifically & economically illiterate ideas like "data centers in space."

Elon knows this. He knows that these indexing rules are the only way to keep the hype going and avoid a space-WeWork failed IPO.

SpaceX makes 16B in revenue per year, with 7B in ebitda (which doesn't account for the cost of rockets)... so assume what, 3B in free cash flow per year? And that's being generous.

That's about what Google creates in free cash every 2 weeks.

And yet if you place a detector at the slits to know which slit the single photon goes through, you get no interference pattern at the end.

> I wonder why SpaceX investors aren’t revolting.

Because if SpaceX were valued like a normal company, they would lose their money.

SpaceX, as technologically awesome as it is, simply cannot be that big of a company because the market for space launches is relatively small.

SpaceX is targeting an IPO at a valuation 500x earnings. They need to jump on the "AI" / datacenter bandwagon to even hope to sell that kind of valuation.

The whole "datacenters in space" thing is an answer to the question "what could require 1000x the satellite launches that we have now?"

It has nothing to do with what makes sense economically for datacenters!

Radiator size scales linearly with power but, crucially, coolant power, pumps, etc do not.

Imagine the capillary/friction losses, the force required, and the energy use(!) required to pump ammonia through a football-field sized radiator panel.

That's revenue. Earnings (profit) is what's relevant, because as you can imagine putting stuff in space is pretty expensive!

There is in fact one person who has won both the Nobel Peace prize and a hard-science one:

Linus Pauling. Chemistry 1954, peace 1962.

Amazon stock is flat over the past year. The rest of the "magnificent seven":

- Google: +70%

- Nvidia: +49% - Apple: +7%

- Meta: Flat

- SHOP (closest comp): +19.41%

- Mercado Libre (international comp): +20.73%

So basically, the "tech world" is dividing itself, in the eyes of investors, into two camps: companies that will benefit from AI tailwinds and companies that will not. And all the money is going to the companies that will.

Amazon is more and more considered to be part of the latter group.

This is especially concerning of Amazon because it seems like AWS--the cash cow--has somehow missed becoming the cloud provider for AI compute needs.

As such, Amazon needs to give investors some reason to hold amazon stock. If you're not part of a rising tide, the only reason left is "we are very profitable."

So yeah, Amazon will have to cut costs to show more profitability and become further investable.

So yes, the layoffs have to do with AI...but not the way they are spinning it.

Inconsistent jingoistic nationalism.

On one hand, he claims that he "fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them." And on the other hand he claims his layoff on "a global labor market with almost no guardrails."

So which is it: did he really work on problems no one else could solve, or was he replaced by cheap foreign labor?

Probably neither. The most likely scenario here is one of two things:

a) Amazon made a mistake by firing him. They laid off someone truly valuable.

b) He wasn't as valuable as he thinks he was. Those problems were not worth paying him a meaningful fraction of a million dollars a year (what an L7 makes at amazon).

What I can guarantee is that he wasn't replaced by a cheap, foreign, plug-and-play replacement.

It all makes sense when you realize the point of his tweet is that he's plugging his run for congress: so yeah, of course he's tapping in to the absolute worst nationalistic sentiment. Shame on him.

Lesson it took me far too long to learn about what "the best" is. Bona fides: I'm no titan of industry but I've worked with many, across many industries.

I've seen "the best." I've had what could be considered "life changing" success by most metrics (but irrelevant by SV-billionaire standards).

The lesson:

There are, in general, two groups of people you can work with. People that do what they say they are going to do, and people who don't.

People who don't do what they say they are going to do outnumber those that do by 20-1.

If you surround yourself with the first group, you're going to be ok. If you don't, most of your time and your organization's time will be spent not-doing, not-measuring, and not-advancing.

"The best" really is that simple, and the bar really is that low.

Of course, if you do what you say you're going to do, and you're incredibly smart, and you have vision, and (insert whatever you care for here) then yeah, you'll be the "best of the best"...but those things are legitimately not necessary for success.

Could not have illustrated the point better if I tried.