> I mean, if you're going all-in on the future where is the biotech, pharmacology and the robots?

The Vision Fund has invested billions into robotics companies. Cruise is making self-driving cars. Nuro is making autonomous delivery bots. Zume is supposedly automating pizza (I say supposedly because they do have a robot for making pizza, but their valuation is almost entirely "justified" by a patent to cook food in a moving vehicle - yes really).

Granted, I think the way they invested in these companies still has all of the financial shenanigans of their investments and they really aren't long-term plays - but they are putting more money into robotics than just about anyone. That said, I don't think it's going to bear fruit.

> patent to cook food in a moving vehicle

Also known as a food truck.

It's a little more nuanced than that. If you didn't happen to be an expert on both robots and restaurants (as you can imagine, this is an extremely niche group) you would actually think it is an innovative solution. In fact, before the Vision Fund even existed, I was surprised how many investors were looking into this exact space (food trucks for pizza that cook the food during delivery). However, once you dig into the details, it quickly unravels into another valuation-inflating scheme for Softbank.

Not really. One of the characteristics of American car culture is that the land that your car occupies as it travels, or makes short deliveries, is not charged “rent.” So unlike a food truck or restaurant, where you need to pay rent for setting up the thing, if you cook and deliver food from a moving vehicle your land costs, which are some of the biggest costs of a restaurant, can be just misappropriated from the public.

That doesn't make sense to me, even trying to absorb your point of view. A moving car has to park somewhere a lot of the time. And parking costs money that ultimately pays for scarce land, so whether or not the money-making is actually happening on the move doesn't have much to do with whether the user is free-riding.

Right but you can park a car in a cheap area and then drive it through very expensive neighborhoods in downtown San Francisco cooking and delivering food while a non-motorized food vendor would need to pay through the nose for that space to prep and sell.

Well, you're considering the alternative for locating that car, but why is that the correct comparison rather than the alternative for using that (moving) spot on the highways? Looking at the latter, maybe that business is providing more to society than other drivers in the same area.

At least you mentioned biotech. Sometimes it seems like the entire (investing) world sees the future in terms of AI, cloud computing, alternative energy, space travel, robots, cryptocurrency, etc. To me, going through all of the growth companies out there with a bottom-up approach, there's practically nothing interesting but biotech.

That "300 year" was double speak like Mark Zuckerberg says "Social Media".