There's no there there, so anything that props up the valuation of SpaceX puts money in scammers pockets at the expense of everyone else exposed to the stock.

But, that philosophy came about in an era when there were protections for small investors that prevented the richest man on earth from dipping into your retirement fund to make himself even richer. I don't know how to be a smart investor when the game is so thoroughly rigged for a handful of billionaires.

I don't really have advice. If I were directly holding an index that tracks the Nasdaq 100, I would get out of it, and take the tax hit. But, I suspect the impact and risk will cascade outward. Nvidia has exploded in price based on actual revenue (though I suspect it will be temporary, and have to come back to earth in time). SpaceX is entirely fantasy land. It doesn't have revenue to justify anything like the price they're launching the IPO, and when indexes are forced to buy it, everyone holding those indexes provides exit liquidity for the same scammers who've been hyping it.

The suckers who have their retirement savings in some kind of index fund because all the experts have been saying, "Buy index ETFs and forget about it" for decades are gonna get fleeced, and the wealthiest get wealthier.

But, getting remarkably higher density of capability per unit of compute is a big thing. It means the frontier can get better and cheaper to operate and less resource hungry, and it means what can be accomplished at the edge, on personal laptops or phones, becomes a broader spectrum of tasks.

And, for privacy, there are a lot of things that should run on-device and not everyone has big dedicated GPUs.

https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/what-the-nasdaqs-new-fas...

The unfortunate thing is, a lot of people have no idea this rule change has gone into effect, and that they're about to get fleeced by a bunch of professional investors.

https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/what-the-nasdaqs-new-fas...

It's legalized theft, and the victims are people least able to defend themselves from it. Most people have no idea what's in their retirement accounts, or track very closely what's being tracked by the index funds they've been told for decades was the safest way to invest in the stock market for non-pros.

Dealing with the legal system sucks. There is a sizable amount of money that I would give up to avoid having to deal with it. It's probably well under $200k, but it's far above small claims limits.

Nobody in their right mind goes to court as a first resort, especially for an older person who maybe doesn't have all their wits about them and doesn't have the economic means to bring the kind of legal heat you need against a large corporation.

So, the facts are hard to follow, but I know for a fact the old guy who lost his collection to a shitty corporation is not the bad guy in the story.

Which is why I think it's silly to suggest creating a new language "for agents". Unless one or more of the frontier AI companies commit to creating a language and the training corpus for a new language, there's no good way to bootstrap a language that is ideal for agents. You need the huge pile of high quality code as a prerequisite for a language being good for agents. And, the argument applies similarly poorly for some language that looks like it has a good shape for agents, if it doesn't have a lot of human written code from the past decade or whatever. It's not a good language for agents unless agents already know the language really, really, well because of a huge pile of code in that language in its training data.

Since a lot of billionaires pay practically nothing in taxes, relative to their wealth, a wealth tax that equates to a 20% income tax would be entirely reasonable, and they'd still pay a much smaller percentage than the taxes I pay from my wages. It closes a loophole, it doesn't punish the very rich. And, nobody is suggesting the average 401k or Robinhood portfolio should be subject to a wealth tax.