I think this is why he gets away with it. A "win" is a product delivered years late for 3x the promised MSRP with 1/10th the expected sales. With wins like these, what would count as a loss?
He gets away with it for one reason only, and because he consistently delivers good returns on capital.
Most of Tesla's revenue derives from Model Y and FSD subs. I agree that Cybertruck was a marketing ploy. Don't think it was ever intended to be materially revenue generating.
Revenue has flatlined, but investors' confidence comes from Musk's track record for delivering good returns to investors. I think we can agree Musk succeeded in 2020 to 2025 in this regard. Whether you are confident he can do it again over next five years is the key question.
I'm personally more persuaded by the argument that Tesla is a meme-stock at this point - like much of crypto, it runs on "vibes", not solid fundamentals.
But even if share price is the metric for success, 33.6% over 5 years is like 6% compounded annually, which is okay I guess? [0]
Ehhh, the story of Swiss multilingualism is more than a bit romanticized. A lot of people under 40 know their region's language, English at a decent level, and at best a barely passable 2nd national language (exception would be those living in the actually bilingual regions).
I think there's a strong case to be made that, while the different Swiss linguistic regions strongly prefer to associate together, in reality they draw a lot from the countries they share their languages & borders with when it comes to business and markets, etc. But between linguistic regions, there is additional friction for sure. If anything, the share competency in English has been a major boon.
Source: been living in Switzerland for 10 years and very interested in its system.
> The real issue was never AI in Windows It was AI with no clear user benefit
Much of the way AI has been forced upon the world by MS and the likes makes it very difficult to separate the two. The trend of enshittification leading up to LLMs has also not been a solid basis for trust. So yes, for a lot of people, the underlying technology isn't necessarily an issue, but it's kind of hard to imagine it being presented in a non-problematic way given the above, which I suspect is a big part of why there's a growing sentiment of distaste with anything AI now.
How much of this is executed as a retrieval-and-interpolation task on the vast amount of input data they've encoded?
There's a lot of evidence that LLMs tend to come up empty or hilariously wrong when there's a relative sparsity in relevant training data (think <10e4 even) for a given qury.
> in seconds
I see this as less relevant to a discussiom about intelligence. Calculators are very fast in operating on large numbers.
I almost want them to pass it through before the FIFA World Cup kicks off in July, and see how that affects visitor numbers. I'd like to think it would absolute tank the event (good, because also fuck FIFA, especially after their "peace prize" bullshit), but honestly I don't have faith in most people to consider this a deal-breaker for them.
My parents live in the US, they are aware (and accept) this would be a reason I wouldn't be able to visit them and instead we'd have to meet somewhere else.
He's described as a "permabear" on r/StockMarket and r/wallstreetbets. Common refrain is he could be right in principle, but getting the timing wrong can be the same as being wrong, for all practical purposes.
The timing matters if you want to make money off it. I'm just talking about how he was saying the US empire will fall a few years ago. Not the stock market.
I think it can also apply to how much credit we should give him if he ends up being right. If his predictions come true within the next decade, he'll be considered a prophet; if in the next half century, then not so much.
I don't have anything to go by for this, but I do wonder if there were any people who predicted the downfall of the Roman empire 200, 100, 50, etc years before it actually collapsed. I suspect all of them would have somehow based this on its decadence and excesses, but I also suspect none would have had a firm grasp on how it would play out.
I am similarly interested with such questions wrt to the US today.
The Roman Empire died in 1453 because the Ottoman Turks had gunpowder cannons. I am not anybody predicted that considering the Arabs could have likely finished off the Roman Empire immediately after finishing off the crusader states. The Mongols absolutely could have finished off the Roman Empire but just weren’t interested after bouncing off Palestine. Before that the early Muslims could have finished off the Roman Empire has Khalid Ibn Al Walid not been sacked by his cousin.
With so many near death experiences actually death was challenging to guess at.
Can you provide some references to them doing this the first time? You seem to like posting comments about the "Nixon shock" without providing anything to back it up.
Sorry — I thought this was well known. Until 1971 a united states dollar was an IOU for a certain amount of gold. The US cheated by printing more IOUs than the amount of gold it had. When foreign countries started withdrawing gold at a rate the US thought it would run out, in 1971, it cancelled all IOUs and kept the remaining gold for itself.
So you're referring to the end of the Bretton Woods System, which is its formal name.
> The US cheated by printing more IOUs than the amount of gold it had.
From the article you posted, it looks like the US was dealing with an issue whereby their reduction in global output meant that a reducing demand for dollars could cause a run on gold. I don't know if I would characterise this as "cheating" per se. The article states that there were many efforts, jointly between the US and other countries, to maintain the system, but these ultimately failed.
So I don't really get how this backs your claim that the US cheated? Sure it was controversial, and I'm sure there were many peoole who were unhappy about it, but it looks like they had little choice, given the system was failing and they were dealing with an extraordinary inflation crisis to boot.
If you've only printed enough dollars for the amount of gold you have, a run is no problem because you can exchange as much gold as people want. Gold and dollars can be allowed to be freely exchanged, no matter what. If you've cheated by printing more dollars than you have gold, then you have a problem.
My best interpretation is that the apparent craziness of everything we're seeing reflects the level of how much the social order has really broken down.
We saw similar (albeit somehow tamer by contrast) things in South Africa during the excesses of the State Capture [0] years - people (mostly those complicit in trashing the country) started to do and say bonkers things. Jacob Zuma (like Trump) also acted as a lightning rod for these types of crazy characters. Genuinely sensible members of the public started to fabricate or grasp at wild explanations for what was going on. It took a major toll.
Isn't the point of a lot of science to empirically demonstrate results which we'd otherwise take for granted as intuitive/obvious? Maybe in AI-literature-land everything published is supposed to be novel/surprising, but that doesn't encompass all of research, last I checked.
If the title of your study both makes a neurotoxin reference ("This is your brain on drugs", egg, pan, plus pearl-clutching) AND introduces a concept stolen and abused from IT and economics (cognitive debt? Implies repayment and 'refactoring', that is not what they mean, though) ... I expect a bit more than 'we tested this very obvious common sense thing, and lo and behold, it is just as a five year old would have predicted.'
I struggle to see how you're linking your complaint about the wording of the title to your issue with the obviousness of the result - these seem like two completely independent thought processes.
Also, re cognitive debt being stolen: I'm pretty sure this is actually a modification of sleep debt, which would be a medical/biological term [0]
You are right about the content, but it's still worth publishing the study. Right now, there's an immense amount of money behind selling AI services to schools, which is founded on the exact opposite narrative.
Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and a lot of ex-crypto-bros (fraudsters) would agree.
"Exceptional hyping skills" is (today) possibly a more derogatory term than you're expecting.
> And fact is Musk is building a lot of stuff of real substance.
I think the point others are making is this is a more accurate description of Musk ~10 years ago. In the past 5 years its been what, the cybertruck?
reply