this is more about the supply and demand of capital in any given moment than it is about the outlook of the company.
as a litmus test: would you turn down the opportunity to buy OpenAI shares at this current valuation?
78 karma · joined April 24, 2015
as a litmus test: would you turn down the opportunity to buy OpenAI shares at this current valuation?
I arrived at the same conclusion. Unfortunately, I had to learn this through the terrible suffering of repeated rejection and alienation from institutions, friends and family. It's incredibly true.
Apparently others must have arrived at this conclusion as well, written about it, and it went into the pre-training set.
Sadly, it also means there is no pure Science that pursues pure truth. Even physics. Scientific pursuits are always in service to a group over truth.
Now it is liquid.
"[FB] is given data by it's users, rather than us collecting it."
These are the values MIT teaches young entrepreneurs who want to solve real problems and help real people?
It’s unexamined capital-optimizing society extracting garbage.
Go help people. Make enough money to keep the business growing.
Let the VC piggies keep funding founders whose primary motivation is billionaire status.
why not just sell the damn thing but don’t market it for parkinson’s.
That's extraordinary language from a federal regulator.
What dehumanizing stereotype did you read?
I suspect the reason what I wrote is hard for you to read, and elicits that reaction in you to find some story that might contradict my statement, is because people need to think of themselves as good people. It's too much of a cognitive dissonance and shameful to think otherwise.
I find most successful Americans I meet are so self-obsessed they are left with an incredibly low capacity for empathy for those in lower classes than them. Wild how they think they are so different than Nazis.
Capital always prefers machines.
The underlying program was in trouble. NASA had already concluded before Isaacman took over that the existing Mars Sample Return architecture had become a roughly $8–11 billion project with samples potentially not reaching Earth until around 2040.
So yes: NASA killed the bloated $11B / 2040 version of Mars Sample Return.
Isaacman is pushing NASA’s Mars program toward cheaper, faster, modular missions, greater use of commercial spacecraft and launch providers, and infrastructure that can support both science and eventual human exploration.
That makes the “NASA is abandoning Mars science” framing fake news. NASA is abandoning a specific, extremely expensive architecture.
Isaacman has explicitly left open the possibility of retrieving Perseverance’s samples through a different approach.
The real question is to what extent the new model will actually deliver the samples faster and for dramatically less money.
software people have no idea how incredibly cushy they (still) have it.
It will raise the level of personal agency + stable family resources required to avoid crises and homelessness.
Society will increasingly organize around preventing class warfare.
see: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/health-care-and-social-ass...
The same company that refuses to acknowledge that it let its own greed and temptation to own the entire economy abandon its non-profit Manhattan Project? At the expense of disrupting the economic well being of 95% of humanity?
Mark genuinely cares about your mental health.
He does not want to rewire your brain to be dependent on his models, like he did with FB/IG.
We can see it in his empathic eyes.