94
Sounds bad? RIP retirement?
(hexbear.net)
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
Does this mean people are being forced to buy Spacex stonks somehow?
Yes, I laid it out in more detail in another reply, but index funds buy shares of every company in an index (S&P 500, NASDAQ, etc.) as a way of investing in the entire market or a sector. This is seen as very safe since presumably over the long term line goes up. By waiving all of these requirements all of these hedge funds and retirement funds that use these index funds will be forced to immediately buy huge numbers of SpaceX shares and pump up the price right after the IPO and then hold the bag as the price goes back down.
Boy life has really been good to Elon, I mean sure he's failed upwards, his exes hate him, his kids hate him, but he's got a legion of nimrod fans and literally all the money in the world.
But, why? If anyone can see that shit is not really worth their stupid self-asigned price, why would they actually buy that bag of shit?
https://archive.vn/dqVcc
This article goes over it briefly. But it doesn't really cover how SpaceX got the waivers other than stating that index providers are becoming less risk averse and more willing to make these exceptions. It is just with the very large size of the SpaceX IPO and the fact that it is not profitable and its valuation being based on large scale space travel soon becoming a thing and everyone getting their internet from starlink soon that this is such an extremely bad idea.
Of all the stupid business plans... I really do not understand this. Who the fuck wants to go to "space"? There's nothing there. literally no there there. Elon Musk has not even been "there". Has a single person ever gone twice in a recreational capacity?
More fun to go to IMAX or roller coaster.
My understanding is that from a technical perspective this is implausible but at least it kind of makes sense as a desire. A powerful wfi router in the sky.
Even if it were technically plausible, the telecom monopolies being as they are, it would be a long slow row to hoe displacing them.
Ever since I was a kid I wanted to go to space. But only because I loved and still love science
Sure some people would go if available "too see". But then you go for 60 mins have your fun bouncing around. And?
The most popular kind of general travel destinations (as in you go to a specific facility and pretty much stay there) as far as ive seen are "resorts". People like them because favorable exchange rate allows them the exploit workers and resources above their usual status. You go and have an inclusive package you dont need to worry about. Just eat, get drunk, sit in the sun, have sex, hang with friends, dance, read, swim, read, enjoy the view.. Servants clean up and cater to your needs and all local people are generally expected to be submissive and accomidating. It requires massive labor to create, maintain and staff these palaces.
As vacations go, bopping around in zero g has little appeal. Most people travel to escape their real life with something easy.
And idk not to be a spoil sport but it isn't like you're "being in science". You are just as much experiencing science at ~1G everyday. All of life is science. Drop a rock on your toe: science.
Mars bases and colonization is what Musk tries to sell. Similarly asteroid mining, data centers and factories in space, and massively increased rollout of satellites. All of these are stupid because they all rely on massively over-inflating the upsides and really thoroughly underestimating the costs and expenses of doing things in space, even if we could theoretically put some of these things up there. The only plausible part of the plan that makes sense is increased demand for satellites, but that includes a lot of double-dealing, since Starlink is going to be a supposed driver of that.
Similarly I don't think it is theoretically impossible. I have not looked at the numbers or how much of the electromagnetic spectrum that that would require with current technology, nor have I seen anyone else try to address it. But my feeling is that this is unlikely to work at that scale and would be prohibitively expensive to keep such a large covering of satellites in low earth orbit, aside from other issues like making ground based astronomy impossible and risk of space debris. I think this is the same thing as everything else, of just really trying to low ball and ignore the actual costs and just rely on the idea of "Musk launches a few more satellites and everyone can just get internet everywhere and we don't have to maintain all of this pesky ground based infrastructure like wires and fiber"
I heard on a podcast recently that universal Starlink implausible due to limits on how much radio frequencies are available. That all the signals required to really saturate a geographic area with lots of users would create too much noise and conflicts. (That's how I understood it, do not quote me!)
That was what I was referring to with the electromagnetic spectrum. That is likely the case, but theoretically if they could get other parts of the spectrum reallocated and higher frequency transmissions. It might be theoretically possible in the abstract.
I just wish that the billionaires lining up to shoot themselves into space on shoddily constructed hardware could find a less ecologically devastating way to do it, like maybe a really damn big trebuchet.
I think it's worth the hit to the atmosphere.
Honestly, I have not looked too deeply into how SpaceX got all of these waivers. I am guessing there are enough people holding equity in SpaceX with influence that can pull strings to get their exit liquidity. And they can try to justify it to rubes as SpaceX being the super future company that should be treated specially (It bought xAI, and is trying to sell itself as the future of internet through starlink and having control of all space travel when we all start moving to space and Mars bases any day now)
So it's the funds' managers bankrupting their own funds? Just openly stealing from the company you manage by using all the company funds to buy magic beans from your cousin?
Hmm, classic
My understanding is that it is the index managers not the fund managers. Indicies started just as nice ways to track the market or sectors in one number (which is why in reporting and checking on the market you will see those numbers quoted). When an index fund decides to track an index and define and market themselves as doing it, the fund is legally obligated to follow the index. Several analysts at the FT has been complaining about how much power this gives the people in charge of the indicies and that most people haven't really caught on to.
Edit: to make it clear guys at something like Standards and Poor (S&P) decide on what to include in the index and the rules around it and then someone at a company like Blackrock or Vanguard markets an index fund that will track that index to investors. So in this hypothetical, it is S&P screwing over Vanguard investors.
Dunno, idk how the market works
I think there are about to be about a million explainers on every type of media about this stuff. Like in 2020 when everyone learned about supply chains.
:monke-to-monke-communication: