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.
In what way is having less choice of news outlets (once CNN and CBS are under the same owner) not harmful to consumers?
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?
Problem is that doesn't work either, since the asset 'value' is unknown until transacted, and also ignores the stock value entirely, which is generally not nothing.
For my net worth, you would absolutely count my stock holdings, because at that relatively mundane level, I can probably sell it at the extrapolated price. If you have even a couple million dollars of stock in a big company, you will barely move the volume of trades for the day, so the extrapolation works in isolation.
But when the amount becomes a significant portion of typical volumes, then the transaction will not pan out at 'market rates'.
So we have this awkwardness of something that is definitely worth some cash, but the extrapolated value can't predict the real value, and the other measures would fall short.
Yes, Lenovo had this feature. They were called the Yoga.
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.
I love how it's so blatantly obvious that they are leaning into software development and the models are assuming you are going to write some C# to adjust brightness.
No idea if that's even close to right and I'm not inclined to check, but the fact the first answer is not "Well, find the brightness buttons and press them" is telling.
In a sane world, you might expect the Windows 'integrated' AI to be wired up to just... adjust the brightness..
But *fine*, you don't wire it up, you might then at least hope the AI to say "That capability is not enabled, but here is some help text telling you to do it".
But nope, "That sounds like something an ioctl would do, and I don't know the ioctl per se, but let's just submit random bullshit ioctls and *maybe* it will happen to do as user requested?"
UID checks out.
"It is hard to overstate the debt that we owe to men and women of genius." -- Robert G. Ingersoll