It's probably easier to be a Riverian if you believe there is a safe Village behind you. Playing Poker and taking a high EV/ high variance bet is really fun if you are doing it with disposable income, but not as fun if those bets leave you broke.
It's also a lot easier to be a Riverian you're doing it with other people's money, as is the case on Wall Street. Or if you can lower your personal `p(doom)` by escaping to a private luxury bunker.
I think there's a Valuation vs Expenses error here. Your interpretation compares market cap, which is a valuation, to the $700B per year that Sam is saying he'd need to spend.
Over 700B is 3% of US GDP. It is also 2.5x Apples OpEx, 5x MSFT's OpEx, and 28x NVIDIA's OpEx. It's a pretty sizable number even if you spread it out.
Which is why I don't think it would be 1/10 per year.
I think he's imagining AI growing the economy at a massive rate even before the chip build up. The later years of higher growth and higher market expectations would carry the higher percentage of the total costs as thinks ramp up.
The United States is not Argentina. Argentina, unlike the United States, has to finance most of it's debt from external parties in foreign denominated currency.
Argentina has a vibrant economy, but it's export revenues are almost entirely from agricultural products. Since ag prices are volatile, it's harder for Argentina to acquire the foreign currency it needs to pay debts.
> Inflation is a mass psychology phenomenon
Inflation is a supply and demand phenomenon. If inflation is caused by constraints/shocks to supply, then increasing production capacity is a better long term solution than raising interest rates.
> we have these insane “valuations
This is a completely different problem than goods inflation. Stock market valuations can spike at times when inflation is well under control, and may even crash if inflation is too high. There was a long period where we had near-0 interest rates, high valuations, and little-to-no inflation after the 2008 crash
It seems empty -- I guess he can work on generative AI and Robotics at another company (probably better he does so). But can he actually stop or obstruct FSD at Tesla?
If I was an investor in Tesla, I think I'd want him to start a separate company for those other tasks and then invest separately.
IANAL but aren't the key terms there "selectively banning" and "publicly available"?
NYT articles are largely behind a paywall for everyone. That means they are not publicly available, and a competitor who was blocked from accessing or reproducing that content without a license would not be "selectively banned"
I think what wouldn't be covered is reproducing substantial portions of an article, especially if it's done without attribution. Tier 2 publications that fully reprint NYT or AP/Reuters articles are usually doing this via a paid News Service or Content License. See: https://nytlicensing.com/content/new-york-times-news-service...
I don't find this worth the amount of ink spilled about it. From the article:
> The allegations against Dr. Gay do not entail promoting actual substantial ideas as her own, but rather lifting phrases for sections of dutiful literature review and explicating basic premises without using quotation marks, or changing the wording only slightly, and, at times, not even citing the relevant authors shortly before or after these sections. This qualifies less as stealing argumentation than as messy. Much has been made of the fact that even her acknowledgments section in her dissertation has phraseology transparently cribbed from those of others. Sloppy, again — but still, this is not about her actual ideas.
Trace the accusations against Dr. Gay back to their origin: Chris Rufo. Claudine Gay is an educated, accomplished academic who happens to also be a black woman.
I don't really find the plagiarism worthy of dismissal but don't really get why it should matter where they came from.
If a progressive think tank released evidence that a rival conservative intellectual had committed academic fraud or something, it wouldn't mean that the allegations cannot be true.
> don't really get why it should matter where they came from.
Evaluating the reliability and veracity or mendacity of a source is an important first step in assessing the importance of any accusation or claim. That's basic due diligence.
If a crazy person on the street tells me evolution is real that doesn't mean that evolution isn't real.
The accusation here isn't really a "he said/she said" situation or anything. You can just read the excerpts highlighted and the excerpts from the passages that came before it. As far as I'm concerned, deciding if they are actually substantially similar (and in a meaningful way that undermines the work) is the only thing worth examining.
Another way of putting it -- To drive 50,000 miles, a Ford F150 or similar has to consume ~8,500 kgs of gasoline:
> 50,000 miles / 20 mpg * (3.4 kg/gal)
The Cybertruck Battery weighs ~1,400 kgs, and probably lasts at least 100K miles even with poor charging practices
So you would have to compare 1,400kgs of Lithium with at least 17,000 kgs of gasoline over the lifetime of the vehicle.
If you want to be totally fair, you could include your car's share of the weight of fuels used in the electric grid. However, even charging from a fairly dirty grid is more efficient than an ICE, so this wouldn't change things much.
It's also a lot easier to be a Riverian you're doing it with other people's money, as is the case on Wall Street. Or if you can lower your personal `p(doom)` by escaping to a private luxury bunker.