k8t

This is not a perfect analysis, but:

- Roku has 487M in SVB

- After the 8-K released, Roku lost 323M in market cap

Basically, the market is expecting around 30c of value recouped for every dollar inside of SVB.

(note: I know this analysis isn't perfect, but it gives a rough idea)

If it was obvious, did you initiate any shorts while it was happening?

He's the CEO and a huge voting share owner of his companies, why would he need to pretend to be working? Also, it's probably hard to make breakthroughs in space travel and electric vehicles doing fake work.

There's been a huge amount of leaks, rumors, and reports about Elon from within and from without his companies. He's been accused of a lot of things, but fake working has not been one of them.

As a counterpoint to your data, the only one that hit a NATO country seems to be [2]. In that instance, nobody died.

I've used interviewing.io a lot and it has been immensely helpful. Not only did I get a lot better at interviewing, I also got a referral from the practice interviewer which eventually led me to my current job at a FAANG.

This happens because the players outside the simulation purchased an in-game upgrade.

I'm completely oblivious to the al-qaeda situation so I don't really know the context of this. But if I try to get at your logic, it would be like saying:

"See? I just went on a drive and didn't get into a crash. All those people that told me to wear a seat-belt were wrong!"

Yes, I agree with the reasoning behind Pascal's Mugging. But Pascal's Mugging refers to things that have an astronomically low chance of happening — like 0.000000001. But is the chance that AI is dangerous that low? Nobody in the world knows for sure at this point, due to how far away superAI might be, and due to the uncertainties in implementation. Therefore, if we use Bayesian thinking and spread it out, I'm not really sure you could put it below 1% (I pulled this number out of thin air, but everybody at this point is doing the same).

Let's take a step back and look at the meta-level.

So there's maybe a chance AI is extremely dangerous (as in wipes humanity out), and there's a chance that AI might not be dangerous. There are arguments between how likely each choice is. But the more important fact is that since there's so much at stake (all of humanity), we should likely be really really really sure about things.

For example, let's say you live in a house and you've got your kids and your grandkids and all your lovely pets living here. Let's say there's this mystery device that when you press it, there's a small chance that it could be extremely bad. You'd want to make sure it's OK right? Right?!

I agree that we probably don't need to devote ALL of our resources to make sure it's OK, as we can devote some resources to problems that are actually hurting us right now like diseases, etc. But there are a lot of people in the AI community who think that it may be dangerous. It is rational that we'd want to be absolutely sure that it's safe once we AI happens.

We should take the approach of being DEFAULT cautious when talking about any technological breakthrough that have changes that we cannot reverse.

Most of the value from yhoo is from its holdings in alibaba. So this actually is fairly irrelevant for the stock.