There are mountain passes in Oregon with posted signs during winter that say "winter tires or chains required". I'm not sure if you can actually be cited by an officer for not having them, but certainly you are a hazard to everyone on the road if you don't have them :)
That's the real problem: selling drugs works! Forming a cartel to produce and distribute addictive products, killing anyone who gets in your way? It's effective! You're never going to convince someone to stop killing people and dumping their bodies into culverts when they're making money. It's just not reasonable to expect that, or do anything about it.
I want to buy options against QQQ so badly -- but Tesla has traded at a crazy multiple of revenue/profits for a very long time, so I'm wondering if Elon/AI hype will keep these stocks high longer than I want to pay the risk premium for (options).
The SpaceX IPO has a tiny 5% float and only a $75 billion raise target. There are enough morons in the world that they will compete to buy and push the valuation up. It's all a stupid financial trick to make Elon a paper trillionaire.
Scuttlebutt I've heard is that the revenue mechanism of the whole complex is essentially a gigantic depreciation machine. Starlink sats de-orbiting all by themselves get considered "depreciation". That one mechanism basically gives you a Saturn V sized firehose of tax holidays, because satellites aren't cheap, yo, and you can make all sorts of deals to essentially spread that around.
Is it true? I got no idea.
Supposedly, Tesla had some unique money games that vastly blew up their cash flow early on, less a car company and more a sort of tax arbitrage. So maybe it's in character.
Tesla is a meme stock like GameStop, but for a good fraction of America, so the market cap can be much larger. As long as TSLA owners don't care about the stock defying gravity, it will continue to do so.
Why short QQQ when SpaceX will only be 2% (according to a poster above), when many of the other companies in the index are tech and chip companies, such as NVDA, which are going gang-busters? Even if SpaceX went bankrupt you'd only see a 2% drop, which is easily covered by all the AI chip companies going up. If you think SpaceX is overvalued, buy options against it directly.
Missing context from my comment: I think the triple IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic, are going to be the thing that pops the AI bubble. They IPO for X, the stocks fall by some large double-digit percentage on future news (some model training didnt go well, or maybe China releases another DeepSeek model that tanks Nvidia stock like prior, etc), and the whole tech industry public market goes south. And since, from what I understand, most of the gains in the last few years on the stock market have been driven by AI-inflated valuations on a few large players, that crashes the whole market, and then we're _really_ in pain.
I don't know if this is realistic. But I look at these numbers and its like something does not add up here. The numbers are _way_ too high. As Altman said, "someone is going to lose a phenomenal amount of money". I don't want to bet on a specific player, because I don't know who, but I want to bet in general that someone is going to lose their shirt.
> I think we're still a ways away from CEOs admitting that AI actually can't cut the cost of human capital in half
On the contrary, I think it certainly can. In the sense that productivity per person can be doubled. You could fire half your workforce and do nearly the same output.
Trouble is, everyone who does that will get outcompeted by everyone who didn't fore their workforce, and instead doubled their output.
We've seen it before with factories and computerization.
What's that old saw the investors use? The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent? You can bet on the fundamentals or you can bet on other investors.
The fact that Tesla's stock price is so evidently detached from the performance of the company itself makes me wonder whether or not a public SpaceX will cause those investors who are just trying to ride the Musk train to exit Tesla stock and dump everything they can into SpaceX instead.
I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
Small arms are one of the greatest scourges of machinery humanity has ever seen. It doesn't matter how many bullets have been fired. Their circulation has, and continues to, cause endless chains of suffering in nearly every corner of the world.
I rode the MAX when living there for a few years. I vividly recall screaming drugged out homeless riders being a regular feature. The last time I rode, a year ago, there was someone in the throes of the fent-bends in my section, who smelled like he was dying (he well may have been).
These incidents haven't made me fear, because I am a relatively big and tall male, but they _definitely_ will for others. And even then, they aren't pleasant.
You simply don't run into those things often on trains/subways in Europe (I lived in Spain for a year and traveled extensively in Europe during that time, and on other europe trips prior). So fix those issues, and then I am sure people will want to ride the rails.
The NYT reported recently that the rollout of more impermeable ticket gates have noticeably reduced the proportion of unstable people on the subway.
Not everyone who fare evades is unstable, obviously, but the article suggested that a high proportion of the unstable were fare evaders, so their reduction was an unexpected corollary benefit of the new gates. (I assume this would conceptually clash with the effort to make public transport free.)
Curious to hear from anyone with recent NY subway experience with thoughts to share on this.
I'm a MAX apologist, but you're right. It sucks. I live on the yellow line, and I estimate that there's a visibly (or audibly, or orfactorily) unstable person on the train 50% of the time. I'll ride the train by myself sometimes, but always avoid it with friends or family because it's gotten embarrassing at this point.
Has it been shown that screaming drugged out homeless riders avoid the presence of crowds? Is there any physical mechanism where having more people on the trains leads to Daniel-Penny-like suppression of drugged out homeless riders? Or does "getting more people onto the trains" just mean removing their options until they are forced to ignore the drugged out homeless riders?
As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
Why are you advocating people murder mentally ill people? Daniel Penny is a murderer and violent criminal piece of shit. Why are you advocating for violence? You are a sick person. Please stop commenting.
> As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
You dont have to do one thing. It’s not an either or. You’re statements are coming off as mentally ill and illogical. Should we send Daniel Penny after you?
I'm saying it _is_ and _was_ an issue during the day and heavy commute hours, those were the only hours I rode it! Other places in the world with nice train systems do not burden their riders with "safety in numbers", the places are just plain safer, period. And a great place to start is Don't let people smoke fentanyl on the train :) (And make sure everyone has affordable housing and healthcare, ofc)
There absolutely are serious issues at all times, regardless of how busy the trains are. I'm sorry, but as someone who actually lives in Portland I'm telling you that mentally ill drug users do not give a crap about how many people there are in the train car. After the third time I had to move my kids to different cars or even exit the train entirely due to open drug use and dangerous behavior, I swore off public transit for good.
That's what I was asking -- why do you believe this? What is your mechanism for safety in numbers? If it's "criminals fear being observed", that doesn't hold now that catch-and-release is standard practice. If it's "criminals fear being outnumbered", that doesn't hold when the crowd will be prosecuted if they attack. The only mechanism left for safety in numbers is hoping that criminals feel shy.
This seems intuitive to me because I would never risk fighting someone in the street over some crime, so I don't see why having me around would deter them at all. The same goes for maybe 90% of the people I know. We're weak and docile, even in numbers.
5 years ago was the beginning of 2021, just under a year after GPT3 was released (which was not good at doing anything useful). And that model was 175B params.
GPT4 has been widely rumored to have 1.8 trillion params, which is 10x more, and was released 2 years after this "5 years ago" date that you are using here.
So, to quote yourself here, "This is not true and unfortunately this significantly reduced the credibility of this article for me" /s/article/comment
In late 2021, GLaM had 1.2T parameters. It's difficult to find much use of it in the wild and while the benchmarks it uses are rather outdated, it has a HellaSwag score of 76.6% and WinoGrande of 73.5%. GPT3 had 64.3% and 70.2%.
Meanwhile, Gemma 2 9B, a model from July 2024 with 133x fewer parameters than GLaM, scores 82% and 80.6%. Hellaswag and WinoGrande aren't used in modern benchmarks, probably because they're too easy and largely memorised at this point.
And GPT-4 had 1.8T parameters sure, but it's noticeably worse than any modern model a fraction of the size, and the original incarnation was ridiculously expensive per token. And in any case, its number of parameters was only possible due using mixture-of-experts, which I would definitely classify as a sophisticated architecture as opposed to just throwing more parameters at a vanilla transformer. Even in 2021 GLaM was a MoE because the limits of scaling dense transformers had already been hit.
MoE has made it vastly easier to increase total parameters (and recent open models are really quite large) but it's also hard to compare a MoE with an earlier dense model.
Actually, that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that the govt is saying "Okay, we will not buy your widgets. Also, anyone who _does_ buy your widgets, regardless of what they are doing with them, we the government will not do any business with them." Which is waayyyy beyond just not buying widgets. That is outright retaliation and using your power to attempt to destroy a company.
A 30-day waiting period on news articles _should_ meaningfully reduce misinformation. A lot of lives are ruined by misinformation/leaks in early news articles that are later disproven and those retractions are rarely covered as widely as the original false news.
Sell the risky stock that has inflated in value from hype cycle exuberance and re-invest proceeds into lower risk asset classes not driven by said exuberance. "Taking money off the table." An example would be taking ISO or RSU proceeds and reinvesting in VT (Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF) or other diversified index funds.
What tomuchtodo said. When I left Sun in 1995 I had 8,000 shares, which in 1998 would have paid off my house, and when I sold them when Oracle bought Sun after a reverse 3:1 split, the total would not even buy a new car. Can be a painful lesson, certainly it leaves an impression.
Eh, the top ten stocks in that fund are Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Broadcom, Google, Facebook, Tesla and TSMC. I propose looking for an ex-USA fund to put part of your investment into. Vanguard has a few, e.g. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi... . You still get TSMC, Tencent, ASML, Samsung and Alibaba in the top 10, but the global stock markets seem less tech-frothy than the US.
