One doesn't need to go Bruce Willis in order to have a risk diversification argument. Even in terms of mundane human endeavors, the more diverse humanity's economy and extent is, the less risk there is from economic downturns, the more routine disasters, and the like. That's not enough in itself to justify space development, but it is an advantage even in the complete absence of existential threats.

Further, the argument I noted is terrible. I think it comes about fundamentally because the arguer has a deeply flawed and cynical view of humanity rather than any fatigue concerning pro-space development rhetoric.

So let me get this right, the universe will get along fine with humans and without humans. So therefore without humans is the obvious right choice?

I suppose that it doesn't matter to me whether or not you're surgically attached to a toilet bowl or not, so clearly that's an argument for the toilet bowl.

That's not much of a curve. I've seen 18% considered the low end of C grade.

A roller coaster ride to 100 km. They aren't selling a destination here, but rather an experience. So it's not a problem for them.

What party did you not consider? The people who got off of Earth. It helps them quite a bit to not be dead.

Further, I think it would be of great comfort to the people about to die, that someone would survive and remember them. So I think a scheme to save some people by moving them off of Earth would help the ones who didn't get that chance.

Even in those cases, I'd rather take my chances in Camden or Newark today than thirty years ago.

Alibaba isn't a boring mutual fund. Instead, it's more exciting. Just make sure you count your fingers and toes when it's over.

Only if you ignore risk. One could say the same of getting out of bed and sky-diving. Things could go very wrong in either case, but getting out of bed is far less likely to leave you a pancake.

A single payer system like Medicare/Medicaid?

I agree. Asking the question indicates ignorance of this arrangement. My view is that owning a share of this would indicate poor investment judgment and be a strong signal to me to stay clear of the entity in question.

It's not Microsoft's job to meet the inflated expectations of these businesses. And I find it interesting how so many people complain that Microsoft was stingy rather than acknowledge that Microsoft was there to pay in the first place.

Then you weren't worth "fair value". I find it interesting how Microsoft dumped all this money into software firms and all of the replies to my post are complaints that they could have dumped more. Well, it's not their job to do that.

A monopoly in buying start ups? This has nothing to do with Microsoft's market dominance in OS or Office, and everything to do with ridiculously high internal expectations and valuations for software companies of the time.

I said a good price not an ideal price. If your product can easily be embraced and extended by Microsoft and yet you think you'll made vast sums of money on it, then your expectations don't match what's actually going on.

Then you made a bad choice.