Ah yes, let's trust the guy who couldn't even build (or convincingly lie) about electric cars and trucks to build a much more complex system like an airplane. Let's trust him on his AI approach that both traditional aircraft primes (Airbus, Boeing, COMAC, UAC, etc.) and startups (Anduril, Joby, Archer, etc.) are wrestling with and spending boatloads of money to figure out. What could possibly go wrong? The only reason you'd give this guy any money is if you've figured out a plan to con the conman.

It would not be an understatement to say that Bloomberg is THE global information broker for the financial sector - no one else has the same amount of data and analysis that they do. The Bloomberg Terminal is the defacto tool used by financial professionals globally, involved in moving trillions of dollars in assets every day. The amount of information hosted there is incredible: split second latest numbers for just about every financial and economic metric on the planet along with historicals going back decades, news before even news orgs start reporting out, proprietary intelligence and analysis that provide details into the supply chains of individual firms that the firms may not even have as clear of a view on, etc. They have a massive network effect advantage - their internal chat system has networked just about every major financial professional on the planet. There is also a regulatory advantage - the terminal is setup to navigate the complex web of financial regulations across dozens, if not hundreds, of regulatory bodies from a compliance perspective.

They are the defacto tool not just because they bring that data together in a way no one else on the market has, but it has a level of vetting, security, and support for a system that you'd expect for a tool that the entire financial sector depends upon. AI could do some of the data manipulation, but it would take years to negotiate access to the sheer number of proprietary data sets they have access to and find professionals to train the models.

Per the article, semi-annual reporting is already the norm in European stock exchanges, although companies are welcome to report more frequently if they desire. So one could see it as the US markets actually better aligning themselves with international norms.

They should have first announced that the vehicles would be built in a deep-red state like Alabama or an important swing state like North Carolina or Arizona. Then they would announce the cancellation and discuss mass layoffs and have the panicked MAGA governors put pressure on the administration to ease up at least for Honda. In the end in Georgia, they were practically begging the Koreans not to pull the plug after the ICE raid they pulled.

This re-affirms my view of the Trump administration as a "monkey's paw": it's addressing legitimate problems in the most hamfisted, corrupt means possible. In this case, the administration is aggressively driving toward open source / open systems architectures across the board to avoid vendor lock. However, they want to accelerate the ability to do so to easily bully and shakedown anyone who doesn't kiss the ring and deliver gifts to their cronies.

But you miss the point of this entire effort, this is about kicking out the old defense contractors to start feeding the "new space" and "defense tech" contractors instead with commercial space station leases!

Maybe that's why President Trump has been so eager to do Netanyahu's bidding.

I think most people agree that it's a stupid system, but they argue whether or not to adopt standard or daylight savings time. Each has their special interests and are dug in on the issue. Thus, like everything else in American politics, Congress gets trapped in a stalemate, and nothing happens.

This market has been evolving rapidly for a decade - a lot of advances have been made in the eVTOL space. I think one of the remaining, big cost drivers is going to be pilots, or the lack thereof. Joby and other western eVTOL firms are a long way off from certifying autonomous, passenger carrying platforms. All their certification applications to date have been for piloted versions of their platforms. Those pilots however are expensive and few in number, which limits the number and hours of flight. I don't blame the companies - it's more the aviation regulatory bodies like the FAA and EASA which are still wrestling with autonomy certification. China is worthy of a whole different post; it's actually a really interesting case study on Chinese vs. Western innovation markets.

Don't hold your breath on hydrogen. Yes, Joby did do a short demonstration of it, but for a practical aircraft, we're probably at least a decade out. It's not just the technology, but you need a lot of infrastructure to make that happen.

I think it's a bit different - we're in an era where computing has essentially plateaued while there is still a lot of capital sloshing around the market that is addicted to three decades of tech highs and trying to find the next "big thing." AI comes up, promising to revolutionize everything, and that money is flooding the market with everyone trying to get a piece of it. Of course, there's only finite amount of capital even the most promising AI companies can absorb, so a lot of that money flows to riskier, less capable firms that just slap AI on their products. We'll see a culling just because many of those will inevitably collapse and the dumb money will retreat until the market surges again.

They may not tag you so that the public can see, but that doesn't mean Meta couldn't use any uploaded data for "training" or "R&D" purposes.

Given Meta's style, they'll one day turn on facial recognition for all users leveraging their full database of all tagged imagery they've gathered throughout their history (that they claimed they deleted). Then they'll say oops, my bad, then hide behind their lawyers.

This is one of those issues I struggle a bit with. There's a whole discussion on if we're wasting tremendous amounts of potential food by cutting off the choice parts and throwing away the rest. So we create things like chicken nuggets to maximize the usage of each chicken we slaughter. You can probably make those nuggets in a healthier way, which is a good discussion to have, but it doesn't make sense to just throw out concepts like the chicken nugget.

Kind of like Google with it's "Don't be evil" motto. Great in theory. You can resist for a while. However, it inevitably falls apart whether they are public or private. The masses have shown over and over again that they prefer free with ads to subscriptions. Even if they can make subscriptions work, the inevitable growth in costs will drive them to subscriptions with ads that we see streaming services hawking today. It is in the impossible position of resisting three powerful forces: the greed of corporate leaderships, the insatiable demands for returns from shareholders, and a consumer base that is unwilling to pay the real cost for services received.