nickff

Is this comment pure speculation, or do you have knowledge (or anecdotal evidence) of a similar exploit being sold for $500k?

SPCX is valued as an AI company; any and all issues you have with AI company valuations apply to to SPCX.

I too agree that SPCX’s space business is real and valuable, but it’s (almost completely) irrelevant here.

You can be that factor! Short sell the stock, and use the money to invest in a more-accurately valued business.

This may be a controversial view, but I don't think we should trust the actor in charge of regulating and limiting emissions with its own supervision. The Federal Government has a plethora of agencies which regulate pollution and energy usage; how can we trust either its legislative or executive branch to ensure that their creations are effective or efficient?

To that end, I hope the Trump administration's actions cause independent data collection and analysis by activists and independent scientists.

It seems that making government union members accountable is an intractable problem in the current political landscape.

From what I understand, this lack of liquidity is not an issue in ‘financial markets’, but can be a problem for other assets such as housing.

I’m saying that we shouldn’t base our tax policy on a bubble. The dot-com bubble was treated like a solution to the federal deficit, and it wasn’t.

Yes, that is intended to disallow officers from avoiding taxes by being compensated via ‘loans’ and other means. I can’t find any case where dividends or buybacks were found to be violations of that rule. https://cpataxteam.com/blog/s-corp-owners-are-you-paying-you...

Do the math for yourself. Paying corporate taxes on profits, then dividend taxes on what gets paid out is not a savings versus paying income+payroll tax (which comes from money that is treated as an expense at the corporate level).

Congress is not permitted to levy property taxes.

Capital gains are permissible because of the 16th amendment; the 16A does not permit the congress to tax assets. It seems like quite a stretch to apply Moore to cash holdings.

”Genuine question, why?”

A wealth tax would clearly be a ‘direct tax’, which must be apportioned among the states according to the constitution.

Many locales have laws that do not allow remuneration above the 'reasonable wage', to prevent tax circumvention by having employers spread wage payments across multiple family members of employees, but I am not familiar with any jurisdiction with a minimum reasonable wage law or regulation. Could you please link some source for the claim that business owners are required to accept a 'reasonable wage'?

Seems like power shortages:

”The European Parliament has also faced blackouts this week due to energy consumption from cranking up its cooling system.”

I am not saying that one party paying taxes means that no counter-party should. I am just saying that the impact of different structures should be accounted for.

I agree that in a bull market, many corporations are not purchased and sold at book value. That said, we are on the largest bull-run in history, so we shouldn’t treat this as the norm, and base all our long-term decisions on the current situation.

This would be my personal preference, as I believe that voters often overlook the impact of corporate taxes, and there are just too many (different) taxes.

Not the commenter you replied to, but one thing to note is that capital gains tax (at least in the context of investments in corporate equities) is applied after corporate taxes. Profits and reinvested earnings are taxed as profits, and they're two of the key components to valuing an equity.

As such, when comparing income tax and capital gains, you should add the impact of corporate taxes. Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.

” You can go ahead and call that rhetoric, but you are also reading in intentions that do not seem to match reports from the ground.”

This just seems like standard union rhetoric, like when they talk about quality, or caring about the company’s clients. If the union gets concessions on transparency, and less than a 5% raise for the first year, I’ll do my best to come back to this thread and post a retraction. I don’t think I’ll have to do that.

The employees of the Wikipedia foundation did not create the dataset, though they definitely contributed to the infrastructure behind it. Sam Altman (and the OpenAI employees) contributed even more to OpenAI's continuing success (and that of their industry). Both groups are still rent-seekers, as they are attempting to profit off a market position which was developed under different auspices.

Wikipedia has a lot of money, along with a valuable dataset (for AI); it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. As we saw with OpenAI, it is difficult to keep a non-profit dedicated to its public benefit mission when it has something of tantalizing value.

Money isn’t the only pressure which influences journalism. Access (and exclusion) is a huge pressure on sports, celebrity, and political journalism. A desire for popularity/notoriety cause sensationalism. There are countless other influences which confuse (or corrupt) the nobility of the profession.

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” ― Frederic Bastiat

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70896-the-state-is-that-gre...

The comment you've replied to seems to be referring to OpenAI.

Yes, I agree that it is possible that the 'open source model providers' are doing the equivalent of 'dumping' in an attempt to establish a dominant market position, or at least a foot-hold. I am generally a skeptic when it comes to the effectiveness of 'dumping' as a long-term strategy (as the producer tends to hemorrhage consumers when it increases prices), but some may see it as problematic.

If you’re happy to use the current one forever, then yes. I was amending my comment above to address this when you posted yours.

Are you saying that you think the US government is unpredictable and arbitrary, but that the People’s Republic of China is not? Do you remember all the PRoC’s strange and sudden policy shifts (e.g. steel, real estate, education, football/soccer, etc.)?

It seems to me that in the case of AI (as with many other modern technologies), you rely on vendor/creator support and updates to stay relevant, so the ‘next’ model matters more than the current one, and we have no idea whose next model will be open (and whose won’t).

"Good" (well-extracted) coffee is still relatively good when warm, especially compared to "bad" (over-extracted, or under-extracted) coffee. That said, many believe that the optimal temperature for serving coffee is 50-60 degrees celsius (122-140 degrees fahrenheit).

Why? Naming a weapons company after Aragorn's sword makes sense. "The Daily Beast" on the other hand is a rather cynical name...

Clinton damaged the White House intern program by making it look like they were either his harem or victims; having an affair in his office also made it look like he was more interested in using his position to cheat on his wife than do his job. It was at least a distraction, and probably more of a handicap. If he wanted to have sex with Lewinsky, he should have waited until she left the internship, and done it in the Residence.

I purposely avoided comparing Clinton to anyone else, so whatever horrible things Trump has done is just changing the subject. I personally believe that neither of them has committed (anything approximating) the most abhorrent acts by a POTUS, but that's a different conversation.

If you do something at work with a subordinate, it’s no longer personal.