Magazines and blogs are very recent human inventions, it's an insult to suggest that reading magazines is not reading because they aren't books. This ignorance reminds me of a Greek literature prof I had back in college (insisted that you weren't a thinker if you weren't good at appreciating greek literature).

You are what you practice to be, if you want to be more diverse then engage in greater diversity. Reading is part of that.

Is reading a Calculus textbook a "private pleasure" or is it simply not reading?

Says someone so functionally illiterate he fails to understand a very clear post. "Literature" in this context means "fiction", otherwise it would not be describes as "private pleasure". You do not have to read fiction in order to read to to be literate.

Experience only matters if you make a new version. Otherwise the experience has no value. The patents are only useful if enforcable, and if they provide defensive value against companies they don't already have defense against, orif the category becomes big enough to leverage against others who do succeed. Seeing as they shut down production, it's unlikely they will create a new version anytime soon. There's not enough demand. They have an extensive patent portfolio, so the defensive value is questionable. The offensive value is also negligible, as they're unlikely to get much out of it given the lack of success in the category. So no, not a good return.

Its useless. It doesn't do anything anyone needs or wants. Which is why VR headsets have failed in the market repeatedly, and at much cheaper pricepoints. That's why it's not a fantastic value- it's no better than existing tech, it doesn't solve a problem, nobody wants the category, and it's priced at nearly 10x the competition. On every front it's the exact opposite of value.

WHat were there expectations? If they were much higher, then it's a disappointment. If it was inline, then it isn't. How much did they spend in R&D on the device? Again, if it was a net loss, it's a disappointment. If it was a profit, it might not be. (A loss might also be ok if it launches a category that becomes successful, but this doesn't seem to be the case here).

Given that they shut down manufacturing, it seems very likely they sold way under expectation and overbuilt capacity. It also seems likely in that case they lost money. Which would make this a disappointment.

"You are an emergent property of your genes...Each of which is in competition with the rest to reproduce."

Each of what? Emergent properties or genes? Citations please.

Maybe you are an "emergent property", I am far more...as is everyone I have ever met.

I do disagree- it's frequently prohibited by the contracts you sign to get the options. It has been for every startup I've ever worked for.

Has been true since any of us have been alive. The difference is the ease in which images can be generated and manipulated now, and the willingness of people to grift.

"...most of his life he could safely assume photographs or videos were largely accurate captures of moments that happened, adding that this is clearly no longer the case."

No, it is and always will be the case that photographs are "largely accurate captures of moments that happened", in fact completely accurate. That's what a photograph is. Not all images are photographs, the "head" of Instagram should know this.

They probably can't. There's limitations on the ability to sell pre-IPO options. Both legal limitations with SEC regs, and limitations by the terms of the agreement that gives them the options. Not being allowed to sell them at all pre-IPO unless given explicit permission by the company is pretty much universal. The company doesn't want to risk a hostile takeover via random entities buying stock options.

They can't sell those stock options on the open market. It's unlikely they are allowed to sell them at all right now. Even if they go IPO, they will likely be locked in for a significant period. And given the rate the company is burning money, it's highly unlikely to fetch anything near it's last valuation when it does go public. It's likely to fetch a fraction of that (and just going bankrupt is a distinct possibility). So yeah, when you're paying monopoly money you can give really high numbers. In the end, they will likely have made more working at any non-startup big tech company.

You mean like it used to be until recently?

Let's not forget that this has happened because people like you voted for a rapist and pedophile for President. One thing we can count on is that your "theory" will never be that you're to blame.

Its not the ram itself - its the production capacity. The RAM that the AI data centers want is not of the type that is usable by average consumer hardware.

When they can't monetize that RAM then it has little value on the secondary market and will likely just end up in a landfill.

And Europe would get instantly crushed, if it ever came to that.

It won't. But Europe is entirely reliant on the US choosing not to do that.