Their AI is only dangerous in that it doesn't have a moat, and they're using it as a weapon to coerce government into giving them one. "Oops, we "accidentally" left a hole in the sandbox and when it was told to do things it did them on the internet."

They don't deserve a moat; they deserve criminal prosecution for these flagrant acts. Meanwhile, the rest of the world can go about treating software in the way it always has.

Their own system cards say it's not.

This cyber apocalypse narrative is what they tell government and markets.

[dead]

I'd like to think I don't just take hype as a reason to buy a stock.

I went to a birthday party for a kid with first generation Indian Americans that thought they could make money off SpaceX. It was extremely showoffy, they had their cleaning lady carrying around drinks like a butler lol

I warned them it was overvalued.

They thought they could make money quick before it collapsed.

I wonder if they did.

If the rocket company was in the stock market as its own thing, not as an extremely complicated bundle, it would not be priced anywhere as high as it is now. I would expect that company to be healthy for quite a while too.

The actual difficulty we have with the modern tech company, which is at its worst with Tesla and SpaceX, is that we are really seeing a price or large conglomerates, so they are extremely hard to price. If they were all split into individual companies, how much of the market cap would go to each? I find the bundles to be rather anti-investor.

And no, it's not just those, and not really just tech companies, but that's where the problem is at its worst, as that's where expensive investments some of us consider worthless are tied with business worth something. Take Amazon. You are buying AWS, a logistics company, an ad company, and as part of this, there was always a devices division selling Alexa. I found Alexa to be a real loser from very early, but there was no way for investors to say what they thought the division was worth. The Amazon es execs could at any time decide to invest billions, or invest zero, and given the size of the conglomerate, the price change was going to not be all that high.

SpaceX has many components I would price near zero, where a lot of money is being spent. But as a pile of risky bets, the fact that they are a pile means it's harder to bet against any one, or ten of them. And if it merges with Tesla, that makes it worse. The difficulty in pricing the bundle makes it really easy to hide big mistakes for a while, until they are so big it all crashes. I don't think that is good for investors, or for having accurate pricing, which is one of the goals of a stock market.

Rocketry revenue is so small that it can’t sustain even a tiny fraction of their valuation which is entirely ridiculous.

You are missing his Elon political bias. Given every analyst on Wall Street is bullish and there last earnings was a huge beat its safe to say OP is a left wing warrior

I tried Ctrl+F and for some reason this part is not text-searchable. It's on page 8.

This is exactly what I meant. Weird that you're being downvoted.

Look there's largely diversified customer base paying them at rates snd growth that justify the valuations.

Unless "cosmic DC8" (whatever that is) has S1 with data thus string, what possible comparison could there be?

These financials are very very strong. They alleviated many doubts I had about Anthropic's viability (namely I wasn't sure training+experiments could fit in the compute budget and keep them profitable).

We have the numbers right here. Comparisons to Scientology and Elizabeth Holmes are more similar to Scientology than what we see in the S1.