Camera anomalies are not just as credible as drunk anal probing Canadian fraternity wizards riding dragons. Those, plus ducks, balloons and 737s are actually credible.

You'll end up with the worst employee you've ever had. A narcissist who sounds completely compelling but is completely wrong, or just wrong enough that it sounds right, but the load calculation is off by a small factor, no one else catches it and the bridge fails under a certain condition, someone dies.

There's no intelligence when it's just mindlessly trying to slot the right word in the next position. I realize specialized AIs are starting to have some particular skills, but it still seems so untrustworthy that you still need intensive design reviews by senior engineers, assuming the AI engineer is an idiot and needs double checking at every turn.

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.

Everybody whose net wealth is high enough for someone else to estimate it is a pretend -ionaire. That's how Elon Musk went from being not-a-trillionaire yesterday to a trillionaire today.

The problem is not paper wealth. It's connecting wealth to power. Elon Musk donated more than a quarter of a billion dollars to support Trump's campaign and is spending a bunch on the US midterms too.

Modern democracies have strict political donation limits because they recognize this problem. In the US the limit is $3300 per candidate per election, with total annual caps, and a ban on corporate donations. BUT, there are lots of clever workarounds that nobody involved cares about closing.

I guess we've moved on from moral panic over Tinder and "hookup culture."

Birth rates have been falling globally for fifty years and in many western countries for more like 250 years.