upvote

points

by bjacobel18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby aveao17 hours ago|
next
[-]
Do you have any other examples than that?

Personally, I do expect SpaceX to face consequences in the years to come.

reply
upvoteby lbrito15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>I do expect SpaceX to face consequences in the years to come.

Why?

reply
upvoteby nicce15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Personally, I do expect SpaceX to face consequences in the years to come.

Probably only and only when AOC or someone else from Bernie's camp gets to be president. Otherwise, unlikely.

reply
upvoteby nojvek14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Which the corporate overlords are going to spend billions to ensure it doesn't happen. I was quite sad when Bernie lost. He'd have tried to at-least shake the system.

Trump is the swamp.

reply
upvoteby TheArcane16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Oligarchs don't face consequences in an oligarchy silly
reply
upvoteby vconnor15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
GP apparently expects the US to return to normality, without ever facing any consequence for these last few years of idiocy and blatant corruption. "Whoopsie, sorry everybody"
reply
upvoteby njovin14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Can't speak for GP, but I hold a similar 'justice doomer' viewpoint for two reasons:

1. The current president has shown no hesitation about pardoning anybody he owes a favor to or feels allegiance from.

2. SCOTUS has give the office of the president basic blanket authority to do anything and everything under the sun for "official acts".

3. Half of our two-party system has abdicated all oversight powers for the current administration.

When you combine those 3 things, it's hard to imagine how somebody like Trump or Elon could possibly face federal consequences. Hell, Trump could say he launched his shitcoin "as an official act to help prop up the failing Biden economy" and I don't imagine SCOTUS or anyone else would push back much.

reply
upvoteby ribosometronome15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There's not much recent history of particular consequence facing for this sort of thing in the United States, financially or politically. It's not like we locked up bankers after the housing bubble collapsed or punished people for lying us into Middle Eastern wars.
reply
upvoteby 0xDEAFBEAD5 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Rule-of-law means you only lock people up when you can show a law that they broke, not based on bad vibes or generic poor decisionmaking.
reply
upvoteby TripolitianFish14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I have a hard time pinning down when we stopped handing out actual sentencing for stuff like this. Nixon walked after Watergate, but at least the fall guys get hit with (some) time. Reagan walked after Iran-Contra (grand treason by the way), but his fall guys also walked. Even moving away from unitary executive talking points, like you said nothing really happened to the 07-09 gang, midlevel analysts got pinched for manipulating LIBOR, I'm trying to think about the last time there was proper consequences, IIRC most of the big wigs at Enron pled guilty, and it turned the big five into the big four. Maybe SBF? Even then, that was one guy catching several dozen people's utter carelessness and EA fueled mania.

I really would love to figure out when we phase shifted into this mode, maybe it was always like this, I'm frankly too young to have anything else to compare to.

reply
upvoteby ActorNightly15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Has nothing to do with oligarchy, has more to do with that SpaceX is providing valuable services, the disruption of which can be worse than punishing those in charge.
reply
upvoteby walthamstow16 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think it's bollocks too but I don't think a forecast can be truth or a lie
reply
upvoteby plutomeetsyou12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
how is that a lie? you don't see Space manufacturing having TAM comparable to that in 30 years?
reply
upvoteby randallsquared17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Consider that many do not believe they were lying.
reply
upvoteby 16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby gist15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Saying a market is X is not lying. Saying you have X revenue is lying. Saying you have a contract with XYZ company is lying.

Under the idea that 'you can make numbers say anything you want' you could very easily justify almost any number as a potential market as long as you include the conditions or stated it in a way to be circumspect.

> a hat larger than the 2023 US GDP

Would be more accurate to mention the entire world GDP to support that argument. Then the issue is raised as far as what time period they are referring to. Current year? Future years?

reply
upvoteby guywithahat16 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It wasn't pulled out of a hat, it was the total addressable market for a space, internet, and AI company, excluding markets like Russia and China. All TAM refers to is the total market size, not their market share.

For context SpaceX's TAM is lower than Anthropic's expected TAM

reply