You seem to have ignored the 50% float rule. SpaceX is proposing to go public with about 5% of the float, but S&P requires 50%.

Do we think that the market will absorb the release of 45% of the shares? I'm dubious.

But what an AI-generated crankery! Because I enjoy wasting my time, I chose a random point (beginning of ch2) and started reading:

> Standard field-theoretic practice selects equations using symmetry, gauge invariance, and conservation. This chapter proposes a cognate selection principle built from three structural demands. A potential that carries energy must appear on the right-hand side of its own equation, because the energy it carries is part of what sources it. A potential that describes the same physics in every frame must have an equation that survives change of observer. A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides.

I've italicized a couple of items: Cognate selection principle? Really?

A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides? As opposed to all those tensor equations with differing ranks on both sides? Not exactly the type of thing that makes someone slap their head and shout "Why didn't I think of that?!"

The technobabble is interesting in that any single sentence might make sense in the absence of sentences nearby; It that regard, it's much like an Escher painting: Locally sensible, but globally out-to-lunch.

Although I have to admit: The combination of AI and required new hardware has been a nice boost for switching to Linux.

I mean, more or less, but you see what I'm getting at.

I think an additional table/graph of how large-bet performance vs small-bet performance would be interesting in general, as well as broken out by market type.

It kinda answers of the question: Are large bets equal to smart money? or are they equal in "smartness" to small bets?

I confess I'm surprised by that result in particular. I realize your results are for Kalshi, but ISTR some reports from the presidential elections on Polymarket.

But more generally: When you say there is "only a ~1% maker/taker gap", is that weighted by the size of the bets? or is it averaged over the number of bets placed?

In any case: Thanks for a very interesting paper!

So it would be interesting to measure the inefficiencies of various bets vs the total market value in that bet.

e: Although full disclosure, I did not pick apart the entire paper. Maybe it's buried in there.

Edit: Or better still, convince all of their customers to throw away perfectly good hardware and upgrade to one with a single extra chip, creating a hazardous waste epidemic for landfills as a nice side effect. It's especially important to do this in the middle of a RAM and HDD shortage.

Really, I'll just never be half the great business strategist that these guys are.

Maybe you all knew that factoid already, but I learned the name of shape only recently.

I'm curious: Is there a consensus on which startup companies achieved success using IBM as a fab? or if not a consensus, I'd settle for anecdotes too.

My own company (which built 40G optical transponders) used them back in that era. While the tech was first rate, the pricing was something to behold.

You say that as if stroke is orthogonal to heart disease. Much of what prevents one prevents the other.

I think that is key. A great mentor early in my career pointed out to me: "A" rated people need to work for "A" rated bosses. It's possible to have a "B" or "C" person work for an "A" boss, but when you put "A" people under "B" or (god forbid) "C" bosses, all kinds of problems ensue.

[I've personally experienced that situation only once, and swore never again.]