Comparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple.
I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it!
They have deep synergies in the collectibles market. There's a Venn diagram with eBay on one side and Gamestop on the other, and cultural characters like Logan Paul with his $16m Pokemon card right in the intersection.
This is a big market getting bigger. Americans have more spending money than ever before, especially at the top end, and the collectibles market is expected to grow as much as 7% y/y for a long time. That's like $50b of new spend every year. Massive opportunity.
I think this is smart. Gamestop is a vibes company, everyone knows it, and this is an opportunity to acquire a real business with strong tailwinds. Everyone knows eBay has been poorly run for 20 years. Even in 2010/2011 when I worked there it was running on empty so to speak. Some opportunity to take control of that narrative and grow the business in demographics with deep pockets would be huge.
No, reading verbatim from a technical paper is way too dense. You need a lot of filler words to slow it down and repetition to make it stick when read aloud.
Every group want to label some outgroup as naively benefiting from AI. For programmers, apparently it's the pointy haired bosses. For normies, it's the programmers.
Be careful of this kind of thinking, it's very satisfying but doesn't help you understand the world.
I don’t know, I’ve been involved in computer science for several decades now and cellular automata hasn’t really lost its charm. Seems like a cool thing to dedicate your life to!
Many sites do something like that in practice. The problem is the extra 500ms of parse+eval time for your JS bundle influences user behavior a lot on the margin, so it’s better to not force the user to wait.
Ultimately the choice of platform is about trust rather than capability. Apple has been a much better citizen historically than any of the smart TV companies.
The description/assessment of tasks is all plausible, but agreed, some of the execution can be surprisingly boneheaded :)
Case in point, I am building a cellular automata-based physics system, and there is seemingly nothing I can do to affirm that row 0 is "down" and row 255 is "up". The system just cannot grok it on a consistent basis. It has the ability to take screenshots, write unit tests, etc, it's just blind to the kind of intuitive logic we get with our human world model. So the code frequently regresses and gravity starts going in the wrong direction.
Coincidentally I am also writing a cellular automata simulation. I've blindly given your article to my software architect subagent, who has identified several architectural improvements that it can make and has converted these into tasks to farm out to other subagents. Thanks!
Other words they like are "reflection", "expansion", "compression". These are fundamental, abstract, semi-monadic terms that allow the user to bootstrap an abstract theory. A little bit of "insight" (aka linguistic rearranging) and I've got a theory out of nothing. How does it work? Well, reflection and recursion of course. None becomes one becomes many. Can't you see the structure?
It feels a lot like logical razzle dazzle to me. I bet if I'm on the right neurochemicals it feels amazing.
This is arguably why it makes more sense to bring GH under the umbrella. Azure integrations need to happen yesterday. The future is full-stack batteries-included low-codeish platforms that are easy to launch with and then boom you're one click from the Azure product suite. Tighter integration is the only way to do this because of the inherent distribution advantages.
Github should have the product sophistication/complexity of Atlassian with the distribution advantage of Microsoft. Anything less is an execution failure IMO.
Not even mentioning AI, which is a huge opportunity also.
How could you possibly know what an LLM would do in that situation? The whole point is they exhibit occasionally-surprising emergent behaviors so that's why people are testing them like this in the first place.