The point was just this: you don't need $100 trillion to actually exist for that market cap to be possible.

That doesn't really matter. As we saw with crypto valuations, market cap is just number of shares * last price.

If you have 1 trillion shares and one is traded for $100 you have a 100 trillion market cap.

If you mean from 4% to 8%, then that's actually raising by 100%

Allocations are really really cheap in Java by the way, so I don't get how 500 allocations would even be an issue.

Wait what? How? How is that possibly legal?

Healthcare market is completely distorted. Price isn't linked to value because the person that uses a service is usually not the person directly paying for it. Worse, the price usually isn't known upfront, so no one is making a rational decision based on "value".

How easy would it be for criminal orgs to setup legitimate looking fronts to pass these KYC checks?

If there's competition from LLMs it's going to drive down the cost.

People aren't really partisan like that in Switzerland. They'll happily elect people from one party then vote against the party on specific issues in referendums or initiatives.

For something like nuclear, people who vote for green party might be mostly aligned with the party because it's a key issue for them while people who vote for center or right parties won't really care what the party recommends.

I'm wondering if you're confusing Windows terminal with cmd.exe?

Windows terminal is not the shell. It's a terminal emulator. You run a shell inside of the terminal, for example you can run... Powershell.

Command history is a feature of the shell.

The valuation of the AI labs is based on continual improvements of their models.

Open weight models are going to catch up to Opus 4.8 and at that point the model is a pure commodity.

And what does it mean for indirect access to the models, through say agents working off ticket systems.

The problem here is that the valuations of these AI companies was based on the fact that they'd keep improving models. A company that just serves the latest Opus isn't worth trillions.

Depends entirely on the domain. If you're selling entreprise software, this kind of stuff barely matters for sales.

It can reduce operational costs which is good but there's a limit to how much that's worth.

Preferring something doesn't mean it's good for you.

At that point, the birth rate would quickly rise again, no?

Because if you're back to living in a pre-industrial society, kids suddenly have value again.

So it's likely that either there's a point of equilibrium or the population keeps swinging up and down. Total extinction seems unlikely.