It doesn't make sense to split it though. Their assessment is that it's a bubble AND that it will blow no later than 2003. It's a single statement.

And it matters, because if all you're doing is saying there's an AI bubble then it's harder to prove you wrong but you also don't stand out and won't get a lot of credit for it. A very large number of people are saying the same thing as you, so who cares.

People like Zitron stand out because they go further than others and make detailed statements. Which happen to be wrong.

If your point is just that there may be an AI bubble, then yes the fact that it hasn't popped yet does not prove it wrong. But that's not what Ed Zitron is saying; he's making very specific statements that happen to be wrong time and time again.

As many said in the comments, it's common for doomers to keep predicting a crisis, every month and every year and so on, until inevitably a crisis does occur and they claim they were right. That's not how it works.

But that's not what he's saying. He's making very specific claims that are indeed proven wrong. You can't honestly say he's correct, and the burst of an AI bubble will not be a reckoning.

It seems pretty neutral, if un-exciting, to see EU institutions displayed on Euro banknotes. It also avoids the obvious pitfall of national landmarks.

> Applying for highly competitive grants with limited funding is what scientists have always had to do to carry out the science—a flawed process with few alternatives. But arbitrary cancellations and delayed disbursements are unprecedented. And justifying them on the basis of politics—prohibiting, for instance, grants that include language referencing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)—was unheard of until now.

I was specifically not discussing whether S&P would be right to change the rules. As I said, there can be good and legitimate reasons for such change; I'm not disputing it.

The point of your previous comment was a critic against individual passive investors, accused of backtracking and betraying their own credo. This is what I was reacting to.

Passive investors did not "backtrack", on the contrary their preference on this matter is that index rules should remain unchanged. Conversely, it seems fully consistent for a passive investor to criticize Nasdaq-100 for actively amending their rules to achieve a specific result.

So I find it rather unfair to conclude that "these people want active investing instead". As far as I know, these people are reacting to "active" decisions (such as Nasdaq-100's) and cheering actual passivity (such as S&P500's decision).

Now, one can argue that there are good and legitimate arguments for the inclusion rules to evolve, but by definition amending the rules is an active decision.

To be clear, S&P 500 relies on float, not total US Market Cap, and Space X will have a tiny float.

Even if it was included, SpaceX would not account for 1-2% of the S&P 500 (more like 0.1%), so even if we reason on the basis of a benchmark, it's not a meaningful difference.

It says so right in the title so I may have misunderstood your question.

Yes that's how it's done in France for instance, and generally how it's being discussed in the EU.

The EP paper appears to be highlighting the existence of a debate regarding VPN.

Relevant quote:

"Some argue that this is a loophole in the legislation that needs closing and call for age verification to be required for VPNs as well. In response, some VPN providers argue that they do not share information with third parties and state that their services are not intended for use by children in the first place. The Children's Commissioner for England has called for VPNs to be restricted to adult use only.

While privacy advocates argue that imposing age-verification requirements on VPNs would pose significant risk to anonymity and date protection, child-safety campaigners claim that their widespread use by minors requires a regulatory response. Pornhub and other large pornography platforms have reportedly lost web traffic following the enforcement of age-verification rules in the UK, while VPN apps have reached the top of download rankings."

Of course I'm not saying the EU won't regulate VPNs, but nowhere in this paper is "the EU" stating that VPNs need closing.

Also, not sure what makes it so impossible (debates on whether a given law is in effect seem pretty rare, though it does exist), but that may depend on where you come from and the applicable legal system.

This sounds like there would be some kind of revenge, but I struggle to imagine any kind of consequence. Did you have something in mind?

It being an all time high was just to highlight how much "not-crashing" they are, but that doesn't really matter. Even if stocks were merely flat over the past year (or even somewhat down), the general point would still be the lack of a stock market crash.