The SpaceX IPO confuses me, with the kind of testing they do the stock price is going to be a roller coaster ride. Every splashdown with an explosion, even if planned, is going to impact the stock price. Are they hurting for cash? Why even IPO if you don't need the cash?
Their IPO sees the company as doing a small amount of space and $22T of B2B services. If you believe that then space launches shouldn’t have much impact on their valuation compared to things that affect their hypothetical services revenue. If you think the value comes from the rockets, you would need some very large multiples to justify their desired valuation in which case, sure, the rockets are the cause of volatility…
S-1 isn’t public yet. Source on the lockup period? SpaceX for example filed with accelerated release of insider/investor shares so I don’t think we can know if this is the case until the filing documents become public.
Look at SpaceXs filing. There is one but it is super short. I was just pointing out that 365day lockup is likely incorrect and OP doesn’t really know that until the filing is approved and becomes public.
Going to give the benefit of the doubt here. I know what lockup period means.
365day lockup isn’t a universal standard. For example for SpaceX 20% of insider shares can be sold in the first few days. 100% within the first 3 months.
Without a public S-1 filing we don’t know what the lockup for Anthropic will be
I'm sure they can get private loads or similiar way to "hedge" those? also dark markets and other tricks exist. Fin. eng. level goes way higher for them, just contact inv. banker or their lower class friends. They will find a way.
> Are we in a race to see who can pop the bubble first?
Just because it's a bubble doesn't mean money can't be made.
If you're worried it and the risk involved, perhaps go from 100% equities (100/0) to an allocation that has some bonds (90/10, 80/20, etc). Rebalance as things get out of whack.
There are products that do this rebalancing for you: target-date funds that increase bond allocation as you get closer to retirement, or fixed-allocation all-in-one funds (VASGX, VSMGX; CA: VEQT/XEQT).
Having some bonds and rebalancing would have saved US domestic investors in the so-called Lost Decade of the '00s:
> If we are still likely to see rising interest rates, bonds feel like a bad idea.
Bonds are a bad idea until they're not… at which point it may be too late to buy them.
And you (generally) don't buy bonds for returns (at least not since the '80s). If you can sleep at night with the gyrations of The Market™ then go ahead and skip them, but also keep your timelines in mind (are you hoping to retire in 5-10 years, or make some other use of the money (downpayment)?).
As you likely know, rules have recently been changed that basically force many 401k funds to invest in these IPOs while simultaneously having a relatively small number of the initial IPO to be sold to the public forcing the funds to by at inflated prices.
The bubble won't pop until these retirement accounts of have been raided.
I'm pretty sure that's the change GP is referring to. But pension funds can choose to specifically exclude such companies. The Danish pension fund has already excluded SpaceX, which owns xAI. (This also probably relates to American threats of annexation of Danish territories, not just AI stuff.)
And as suspected, the Anthropic deal is not recurring revenue, its just a think they can cancel anytime with 90 days notice...Release the bad news slowly and when people are looking somewhere else...
SpaceX AI segment lost about $2.5B from operations in Q1 2026 on $818M revenue...they are burning dollars. Musk controls about 85% of voting power through supervoting shares, and cannot be fired...go IPO buyers...nothing like economic exposure without control....
This feels important to read, and I appreciate the author's candor.
You have to remember that not every character (for lack of a better word) in every story you read, needs to be morally justified in their thoughts, emotions, and actions. This author is angry, humiliated, scared for their life. It's not compelling to discuss their thoughts without empathy. If you don't think you would feel or say the same, were you in their shoes, imagine "what would need to be true for me to feel, think, act that way?"
This way of empathizing, where you assume the role of another without assuming superiority, may help you better understand what the author is trying to communicate. What must it be like, what might they be going through, how vulnerable must it feel?
The author is dealing with a minute-by-minute reminder of how easy their life could end. Most readers will have never experienced this. On top of this, they are dependent on a company and system, which is only tangentially designed to keep their body alive. During a time when the author dare to have a vacation away from home, an experience something many of us don't realize we take for granted (maybe not financially, but the fact we are able-bodied enough), they are faced with losing their life like never before.
I think the author needs no justification for their apparent rage. It's refreshing to hear a voice we don't often hear. We are often raised being told these feelings of grief and rage are bad, unmoral, crass. That we should judge others who express them.
Here is one person's story you happened to come across. If you have trouble empathizing, remember, at best, we are all just temporarily able-bodied. You may do well to reckon with these experiences now, before your existential challenges are picked apart as inconvenient or uncomfortable for others.
If vulnerable individuals don't "...put up with this shit," they get sick and die. To understand this, you have to understand that there isn't usually an alternative.
I think OP means more why politics hasn't changed this. Even at state level there's plenty of stuff that can be done about this but seemingly no one cares enough.
The first time I came across puredata was while I was debugging a networking issue at $JOB. After ssh-ing into the host machine, I was looking through what tools were installed, and came across `pd` in $PATH. I ended up discovering that someone had added `pd` to the provisioning script years ago, thinking they were installing pandas (the Python package).
I do think the mention of consumerism is apt. In my own encounters with those that seem to take pride in their inability to distinguish certain nuances, it does come off as a mental block borne of not wanting to feel like they are missing out on expensive things.
I think it cuts both ways though — there are those who will exaggerate or outright fabricate subtle differences in order to justify their expensive purchases, and also those that will deny real differences because they think everyone is just doing the first thing.
One can also look at distinguishing what is important to what is unimportant to a particular person. Personally, I look towards functionality over aesthetics. That isn't to say that I will completely disregard aesthetics, but I have certainly gone with those black bricks called ThinkPads over MacBooks in the past.
You are right about it cutting both ways though. I remember laptop shopping with a colleague in the past. They were trying to replace a barely functional laptop that they purchased because of its "design" with something they could get work done on. Unfortunately, they refused to acknowledge that functionality is an element of design. The whole experience was one of frustration.
This calculator appears to fit into a similar category. I'm sure it is a perfectly fine calculator, functionally speaking, if you are performing basic financial calculations. It isn't going to cut it if your working outside of that domain. When you consider that a calculator that is a tenth (or even a hundredth) of the price is going to offer a similar experience, I'm not even sure I would regard the nuances in its design a good thing. Yes, it says something about it's owner. I'm just not sure it says the right thing.
Yeah, frankly I'd have more money and be happier when watching a lot of movies if I couldn't tell the difference between OLED black levels and projector/LCD ones.
I didn't ask for it and I don't want it, hah.
I feel no need to convince others that they should try to find the difference.
I'm happy that, say, cheap wine doesn't give me the same mental-twitch.
But I should add (contrary to the rebuttal my provocative take attracted) that I am in fact very finely tuned to esthetics. As a photographer I'm obsessed with getting everything right (composition, light, texture, color, details) and routinely delete everything that doesn't make the cut.
It just seems obvious to me that in consumer products, most of the differences are pretty small in substantive terms. Big economic interests are at stake in amplifying them, and conjuring up demand through marketing, and generally manipulating us.
The example I had in mind was actually audio equipment. Like, clearly the high end stuff gets into diminishing returns to a point somewhere between absurdity and mysticism. But I’ve also had a friend that was completely convinced that vinyl sounds the same as spotify, and that anyone who thought otherwise was just a pretentious poseur.
> But I’ve also had a friend that was completely convinced that vinyl sounds the same as spotify, and that anyone who thought otherwise was just a pretentious poseur.
This is a great example because the ambiguity could go either way (e.g. spotify lossless FLAC vs vinyl will set off picky people on each side).
Sometimes different is just different, and each will be better to some.
Years ago I looked into this when ripping some CDs, because the question has of course been tested under controlled conditions. From memory, the general finding is that most people are incapable of distinguishing audio quality over 128kbps, and even self-declared audiophiles have trouble at 256. So I picked 192.
[1]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026...
reply