so called LLM's

LOL

likely use the same backend technology

LOL

differences may be the weight

LOL

of the database'ed responses

LOL

Only if you treat them like shit.

Effects.

Treating women like shit makes them not want to pump out babies. Now they have a choice, so they are doing a lot less of it. Literally all it would take to get a large portion (a majority IMO) of them to do it without support from a decent partner would be to gracefully and quietly fund the programs that ensure they will be able to feed and provide medical care for their children even if their circumstances change, but there seems to be a problem even meeting that bar.

But then your entire fucking point becomes pointless about 8 seconds later, literally before I could read it and roll my eyes about it.

Except it doesn't. It's shit all day. It makes people upset all day. This means it's costing productivity all day. See, in the real world with real humans, these user pain points have real impacts on those real people.

HTH, HAND!

Same for if it is made in America. If it's not FOSS, then it's not trustworthy, and even then it's limited to e.g. devices you can build your own firmware for.

Lol. People keep repeating this without the slightest idea what it means.

Banks aren't dumb. The restrictions on a billionaire borrowing money are pretty much the same as the restrictions on you borrowing money. It seems like there are fewer restrictions because (1) they're borrowing much less relative to their assets than you are and (2) you probably have only a vague idea of the process based on people making shit up.

In fact, if you're like the majority of Americans and have ever had a car loan or mortgage, you've pulled off the weird trick of using the thing you're about to buy as collateral for the loan you're going to use to buy it. And if you've got a mortgage, you've probably gotten a special sweetheart deal sponsored by massive government intervention.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about because you neglected to say what "that" is, but assuming you mean either book or liquidation value, you'd assess SpaceX's book or liquidation value and then give a share of that to Musk.

Yes, it absolutely requires estimation. That's why we have so many different methods despite your assertion that "I haven't seen really any better ideas deployed". The only actual objective method for assessing the value of something is selling it. All other methods are estimates. Market capitalization is arguably the worst because it estimates the value of the whole based on what somebody pays for a (usually) very tiny piece. If I pay you a dollar for a blade of grass on your lawn does that make you a billionaire?

I don't disagree. I said back before the IPO that there were going to be a lot people people buying SpaceX stock as essentially a collectible, like DJT stock. That means most of the value depends on what Musk's next tweet is, or whether he has a heart attack tomorrow.

I don't think it's quite as irrational as you imply though. There is potential in space industry that cheap access opens up. How much is very much a matter of opinion, but it's not zero. Starlink is probably just the first example of something that was not economical at all pre-Falcon but is a pretty good business post-Falcon. There will be a bunch more if Starship delivers, which is looks like it probably will, eventually.

Anyway, "the market" is consenting adults. If somebody wants to blow $170 on a share of SpaceX without any regard for what it's actually worth that's not really much different than spending that much on a $20 bottle of wine at a restaurant. And if you think it's going to be a revolution in whatever, well, lots of people make proportionally bigger bets every day when they decide to start a business.

UID checks out.

Those early (and not so early) torpedos and missiles were pretty "anything that looks like a target in this area" flavour. I expect the Ukrainian drones are fairly comparable to them. But it says "drone" and "AI" so all the geeks lose their minds. They should have put "swarm" in there too.

There's a simple solution. Enforce your political donation limit laws.

The point of stock markets is to allow parts of companies to be bought and sold by the public. That's exactly what happened. The hint is in that last word, "market."

Everyone knows SpaceX's market valuation isn't super rational just like anyone walking into a Ferrari dealership knows that the price of the cars isn't rational.

There are lots of other ways to assess assets. Market cap is the biggest one, which is why it's always used in news articles.

https://www.investopedia.com/t...

The GP is talking about liquidation value. If you wanted to assess Musk's net worth the way you probably do yours, you'd use book value.

That describes many of the most powerful men in history. Musk often gets compared to Howard Hughes.

Not anymore. Public companies come with a bunch of restrictions on insiders selling their stock. Even if he did, he wouldn't get anywhere near a trillion dollars for it.