gloryjulio

Spacex is not included in sp500 yet. Nasdaq is the one fast tracked spacex to dump on the retails

So stay hungry, stay foolish?

I think your reply and the op are actually saying the same thing. The is almost 0 chance for a game to be 100% handmade. Even I would want to, I would still use llm to generate tests.

I think the nuance is always there. The disagreement seems to be the semantics.

Cannot just transplant one company's situation to another. Market tolerated Musk because its Musk. Musk has several unique qualities:

- He has track record of making bets in the past and payoff.

- He is way better at working in hardware space than software. His ai data center built out is very fast.

- He is similar to Zuck that he would pivot fast towards whatever is making money. The llm bet might not pan out as good as he thought, but he quickly transitioned into a compute seller

- He is very good at financial engineering. This is an often overlooked quality of musk. His spacex ipoed at the best time and beat both anthropic/openai to the market. Now the other 2 are trapped in the current financial situation.

There is a conspiracy theory that the tokenmaxxing period was anthropic/openai ipo play. They do the tokenmaxxing to revenuemaxxing first, then time the ipo window to show they had the the huge growth to justify their price tag.

However Elon was able to ipo before them which took a lot liquidity of the market. Their financials are exposed. The market condition and sentiment now is in the gutter. It would be very interesting to see how these would pan out

Agree with that. There were also 'Soviet Science'.

You are not talking about the expectations in terms of the corporate levels. Staff and senior have clear definitions in tech companies. A staff(l6) is the team lead who is required to find the scope for himself and team. That's in his job description. If he can't do that he would get pipped or fired.

A senior(l5) is the tech lead on the project level. He is not in charge of handling the team's scope. As long as he handled his own projects well, he would usually pass the review cycle. The difference is crucial. At staff and above, the engineer's responsibility is vastly larger than a senior's.

I am not saying a senior can't do a staff's job - that's how he get promoted once he demonstrated that he is operating at a staff level, i.e "inventing" scope for his team. But a senior's scope is much smaller than a staff's.

This applies to almost all US medium to large tech companies

Requirements engineering still applies to senior engineers. You are given a problem and you need to work out the requirements and the path to completion.

But for staff engineers, they need to to discover the scope themselves. That's where "inventing" coming from. Not saying inventing is a good word here, but requirement alone is not enough for staff level's work

A lot of the Meta/Google folks jumped ship to Openai/Anthropic. This kind of work is expected

There is also insane amount of debt from ai related investment. China's free model is crushing the ai margins while these companies need to pay their debt and obligations. The debt bomb clock is ticking.

The next few years would be fun.

> and it does not require anything close to that to maintain their network.

If it's so easy to disrupt visa/mastercard payment network, they wouldn't be able to charge this much. Payment is a highly competitive business. We witnessed so many payment companies went under or were bought out, but these two stay for years and are still profitable.

The truth is their moat is considered very durable and hard to build. A global n banks to n banks payment network is not as simple as how people thought.

In my experience it's kinda different. The serious issue that raised by higher up usually means more scope, visibility, bonuses and potential bonuses. Teams usually fights to get the important issues(whichever the higher thinks that's important) as their team's work. The drawback is that it's very possible that multiple teams are fighting for the same pie and resulting in duplicated work.

In the end if there are enough incentives(usually money) people would work on those.

Mac gaming is a pain in the **. It's Apple's fault. It's fine they can't justify the maintenance.

Exactly. 38% is way too high. Are we sure about that? Statistics is not some required learning in school. Even those who learned (me for example) cannot confidently claim what it actually means. I would say most of the people don't have a clue what statistics mean

Not exactly an issue though. Because the following Dynasty Zhou was portrayed as a protagonist, which rebelled against Shang and abolished human sacrifice and established the right Chinese civilization. And all the following dynasties are claiming that Zhou was the good old days and they are following Zhou's tradition.

Shang being an villain fits this narrative.

The price war is on, as expected. This is the true China ev moment for llm wars

In my case I didn't understand the context of the context. Also, having no life experience at the time didn't help.

Most of my time was spent on grinding stem subjects

This. I am late bloomer in humanity subjects. I was a typical stem students that didn't really understand any of those classes.

It was not until working after finishing Universities, I started to get back to understand those topics. It also became much more enjoyable once I had the contexts. And learning the contexts is a actually a bigger part of the fun

> That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return.

It's about risk adjusted returns, not higher returns. If you are not considering the risk assessment you are objectively wrong. Take my previous example, how is actively working with you money by taking higher risk less gambling, than passively investing for example an all weather portfolio which is designed to preserve the capital? An all weather portfolio is firstly proposed by Ray Dalio to be as conservative as possible to hedge against all kind of risks while hopefully get some gain.

> Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.

That's objectively wrong. For example lots of etf is designed to reduce risk by diversifying the investment. Just take your own just put money in the bank example. Suppose you do not live in stable country US/EU, and your country is having high inflation. How is just putting money in the bank with your country's depreciating currency less risky than let's say you invest in a global portfolio or an all weather portfolio? In this case, by not managing your risk profile, you are taking more risk.

I am only giving out 1 example to show that `Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher` is objectively wrong. It's actually the opposite if you look into how portfolio managing works. Majority of the funds managed for the Sovereign state or the rich are about hedging against the risks, it's the opposite of gambling.

Because investing conservatively is not gambling. Your definition of gambling is weirdly associated of how money is made, instead of risk making. Nobody uses this word in this way. Gambling is about of risk. It's not about how you are making the money

For example, it's also possible to be actively taking part in the money making activity while taking unnecessary risk. A person can run his own company but recklessly making bets on the loan or spending decisions. So this is the other side of the story where they are gambling and they are actively working with their money.

> If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling.

There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling.

The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't

Do you think it's possible to bomb China's AI datacenters? They are already here, and they are progressing AI at their will. What will others do about it?

We know the price wars are coming. It's gonna be interesting to watch how it plays out in real time. Anthropic/Openai probably want to race to the IPO before the price wars start to have real impact.

From PG's comment on Zuck‘had no concept of small talk`, that's on par for his view on friends.

https://fortune.com/2026/03/23/meta-cofounder-mark-zuckerber...

Sugar heavy diets is everywhere IF people can afford to have them if you look at the data. There is no such thing as Western vs Eastern in this sense.

Note I am not Western

Self host + open weight models, exactly the things that openai/anthropic don't want you to have

Not sure if that's true. Tons of r/wallstreetbets redditors did the same.

It actually is. For example, Deepseek higher ups already had similar implications in the Chinese underground news. CCP has great control over the corporations.

Michael Burry almost got wipe out if the bubble last just a bit longer. He started shorting way before the crash. He was lucky that he held long enough. There are many others see the same thing but just lost right before the end of the race.

That's why timing the crash is hard. The market has to agree with you but also at the right time

Investing and trading is a dynamic game. If everyone has the edge of certain portfolio to out perform the average, then no one has the edge.

Similarly AI is not going to solve that. Because everyone would end up with similar AI edge until no one has the edge.

People should start with simple universal rules: Stay invested. Buy low cost diversified etf fund. Favor long term investment instead of trading. Learn something from all weather portfolio composition to hedge the risks.