So the practical answer to your question is: not much.

Second, precedents can be overturned.

I agree, which is just one more reason why the original reason you proposed for Google’s investment is very likely not correct. More likely is that Google got a good deal on compute from them. Normal business reasons.

> Also, for better or worse, SpaceX did increase by about 200B today.

The relevant question is how much it would have increased without Google’s investment of an additional $12B. If the answer is “more than $0” then the fact that it only increased $200B means it was a bad investment to pump the stock.

They aren’t just an “AI company”. They’re the primary entry point of open weight models. If open weight models are seen as dangerous as a result of this incident, it will be bad for them. Similar to how it would be bad GitHub if open source was seen as dangerous.

A majority did not choose this.

And when those ideological people start making noises about the ways they disagree with the company, he might miss the more mercenary employees.

If my day job was a side project I wouldn’t work on it at all.

https://myjrpass.com/ja/blog/Escalator_Rules_Japan

> However, each region in Japan has a different side to stand. In Tokyo, people stand on the left side and in Osaka, people stand on the right side.

In order get that back by “pumping” SpaceX stock, SpaceX market cap would have had to increase $200B based on that investment, and then Google would need to sell the stock.

In fact handicraft people were out competed so hard many people forget that used to be a respectable career.

I will say that there are a lot of parts of programming I enjoy, but I used to spend an inordinate amount of time chasing down obscure errors or learning arcane systems just to get to the parts I personally enjoy: the feedback loop of making a thing, seeing the result, and improving it.

There is a reason stack overflow is dead. LLMs are a strictly better product.