5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Selling shares could mean the different between control and loss of control of the company. As in, you have loyal people on the board who understand your vision, and suddenly depending on perent ownership you and your friends will be minority stakeholders and you can get kicked out of your own company. Remember, it happened to Steve Jobs famously. But it's actually fairly common the founders get kicked out of their own company when they no longer have controlling amounts of shares. You'd be handing control of the company to people who bought shares solely because they want to make money. Don't care about the vision, don't care about the industry. Which is OK, but also they won't know how to run things. Next thing you know the company gets run into the ground.

Also, what about private companies .. are they going to be tax exempt .. you're going to value them based on how many people want to buy shares? What would those shares be worth when they're stolen from the owners? This is like Zimbabwe seizing white owned farms and handing it to people clueless about farming.

The asset tax is dumb. how is he supposed to pay that tax without diluting his ownership stake? When he announces he's selling shares, the value of OpenAI will drop just by that. So does he pay tax on the new or old valuation? I don't see how anyone would just go along with that. He'll be fucking pissed. I mean, if you had $30 billion and someone pisses you off beyond anything by taking what you put your heart and soul into you'd do every legal means to makes sure whoever done that to you pays. He'll hire a posse of lawyers to ensure he gets back at them.

If you're concerned about that, why are you OK with setting the precedent that the government gets to decide what is in, and not in, the models?

When the Democrats come in, they'll vet the AI models properly.

We can't have this cultural rot. And btw, circumbinary planets? WTF. You're born orbiting a particular star, not some woke circumbinary bullshit.

All the vibe-coded slop .. instead of buying enterprise software .. it will just get vibe coded by the IT department. Think about that .. instead of buying a license for Photoshop a design company can just vibe code a photo editor that has what they need. "create a full featured photo editor with some custom features like ..."

AI will create new jobs and opportunities.

Have you been to Iran? Nearly every middle class and above home in Iran has a satellite dish -- and that includes, and actually especially the elites. They're not transmitting .. but all of them are literally illegal (punishable by jail time). My point is that not just that you're giving Iran too much credit on their ability to crack down on shit, you're giving its elites too much credit on their ability to be without internet. Iran's leadership rules by fear, bravado, and random arrests -- their actual technical capabilities are weak. They don't do anything evidence based, the whole point is to be somewhat random as that elicits the most fear. For example, somebody within the IRGC, who likely actually owns a Starlink unit themselves, complains about their neighbor by accusing him of owning Starlink and then that guy disappears. I'll bet anything they haven't caught one actual Starlink owner.

Think about it .. the US landed C-130s, and a bunch of other aircraft including helicopters deep in their territory --- hung out for like 45 minutes and left. They couldn't track noisy ass helicopters and you're telling me they can find a phase array antenna Starlink? Most units of which, I can pretty much guarantee, are owned by government-connected people. And btw, they can be solar powered and planted some distance away from whoever owns it.

If these were easily detectable people wouldn't be smuggling these in like they're the iPhone.

So your argument has now devolved to people are better off poor? You went from being envious of billionaires to saying people don't need any modern amenities.

I didn't say he wasn't happy did I? Btw, how many people would trade their smartphone and live a 17th century life? People had the choice not to buy smartphones yet everyone in the world wanted/wants one.

here, record the sound from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I dunno seems to work really well in YouTube videos. This guy did extensive testing, watch from the beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It seems you have succumbed to the fallacy that the economy is zero sum. If the economy is zero sum, how come literally everyone (over 95% of the global population) was dirt poor .. by any standard .. 200 years ago? The economy grows as more goods and services become available. More goods are supplied to the economy, and the persons that make it happen can make money from that .. but everyone benefits. For example, if someone makes an app that helps people find jobs, that greatly boosts the economy .. as more projects can be completed. Housing can get built, cell phones made. Etc.

Today, the bottom 5% of poorest Americans have access to amenities the King of England even 150 years ago would have dreamed of.

If the economy was zero-sum, that would not be the case. Now you could argue the King of England was "happier" but that's only because he comparitively was living it up. He could eat pineapple, something nobody else in England could have. He had refined sugar, something Europeans didn't have. He had printed cotton, which again, was a luxury. On the other hand, there he couldn't have Tylenol or Advil, instead had to rely on alcohol. He didn't have antibiotics, and suffered from a number of today easily treatable chronic conditions. His teeth were terrible and as he got older probably got cavities and rot.

People don't wanna pay $3500 to wear a strap-on bowling ball on their face. I don't care how big they told Tim Cook the strap-on market was.