Those were known factors. I'm referencing Powell, in the late December meeting. There wasn't much substantive change in terms of knowledge about how much building was going on since the prior September GDP release that would say "yes, after September we learned X, so that's why forecasts were lower than actual". In his address, and in his followup with questions from the press, Powell specifically talks about data centers and AI-driven productivity separately.
These aren't context free data points you have to interpret, this is synthesized analysis being delivered in a report by the Fed Chair, giving his & the reserve's own interpretation. He could be wrong, but it is clear their belief is that AI is a likely factor, while also there is not certainty on that interpretation. They've up'ed their estimates for April though, and this advanced estimate from December is about to be followed up with the revised, final numbers on Jan 23'rd, so we'll find out a little more then, and a lot more in April.
This is why I’m not worried about an imminent AI bubble burst. The data centers will be built, the GPUs have already been ordered, etc. What I am worried about is what happens when in 2-3 years time the AI companies need to find paying customers to use those data centers. Then it might be time to rebalance into gold or something.
Grid energy is lacking for now, which is why the new builds have their own power supplies. It’s a good time to be in the solar/battery/turbine industries.
There was a time in my life when I would spend a few hours learning about US-Venezuela relations and the Venezuelan government and related topics so I could have a skin deep understanding of it and play an internet expert in threads like this.
I’m not going to do that today. It’s sunny, and I want to spend time with family. Being naive about this topic doesn’t affect the core of things I want to be knowledgeable about. And the reality is, having a vote only gives me nominally more agency over US foreign policy than someone who can’t vote. I am mostly just observing.
Not patting myself on the back for accepting some kind of notion that "I am too stupid to consider what is this all about and go about my life with that understanding."
> My personal taste for the presentation of a piece of writing is that less is more.
TFA works with iOS reader mode, which is all that matters to me. I use it instinctively as it makes style more or less uniform and lets me focus on the content of the article.
The problem with the stock market is, even if you know with 100% certainty that EM is lying and Tesla is overvalued, you only can cash in that knowledge if the stock price makes contact with reality.
In fact even if every single shareholder in Tesla knows that the price is unsustainable they can still hold out for a greater fool for years. To a large extent you are betting on what the crowd will do, not what the company will do.
For this to work every single shareholder has to be in on the game. I wonder if the only reason it has gone on this long is because TSLA has so many required institutional investors stabilizing the market.
Any serious shareholder with a significant investment in it is surely aware that it's an overvalued meme stock that will continue to print money as long as the reality distortion field is maintained.
They'd be utter idiots if they weren't. (And if they are utter idiots, you shouldn't expect them to behave rationally.)
This is exactly it: they're making a perfectly rational decision keeping Musk on the way he is, because the alternative once he's out is the stock crashes due to the uncertainty and the fanboys bailing.
Why have less money when you actually don't care what happens if you have more money? So long as the stock retains its value, you can do things like borrow against your holdings, leverage that into other investments etc.
At that rate you can pay back maybe $1000 per year, so if you’re only going to live 30 more years there’s no difference in punishment between 30k in fraud and a billion dollars in fraud. Punishment is the same, so might as well scam more.
The movie Heat addresses this scenario in the opening scene. A guard is shot 'accidentally' during a robbery even though they didn't intend to kill anyone. At that point they killed all the guards because 1 guard or 3 guards, it had become a capital murder crime so might as well not leave any witnesses.
As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.
So it’s not a question of being savvy. As a consumer you can’t know what a company will choose to do in the future.
The lawsuit seems to be about using ACR, not the presence of ads.
> As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.
To the parent commenters' point, this is a perfect example of a situation where governments should be stepping in.
The thing that prevents a TV mfg from bricking your device is that they'd be instantly (and successfully) sued. In fact, there have already been many such class actions, ie with printer inks.
The downside is that it's sometimes easier and cheaper to just pay off the class and keep doing it.
That ought to be a slam dunk win in court. Especially since they probably won't show up to my local small claims court and I'll just send them the judgement.
