mattmaroon

Ok, load the app and search for Heinz ketchup and tell me what it would cost to go get some in store.

You can’t. You can only get delivery pricing. They don’t have the basic functionality every store has had for a decade.

Go to self check-out and grab a scanner for your heavy items, which they sell many of. You can’t, they don’t have them, you have to wait for the attendant to get to you with it. (They’re generally good at their job but it’s still annoying if you’re in a rush.)

Sam’s Club is as good as it gets tech-wise, in-store and out. They even have AI that allows the exit door receipt checker to skip checking people so you don’t get stuck in a line waiting for someone to verify you paid for everything.

Costcos give a scanner to the person running the self checkouts, not to the customer, so you have to wait for them to come over. They are very attentive usually but still. (Perhaps this isn’t the case at all of them but I’ve seen it several times in various states.)

Their website/app makes it impossible to just see what’s in store at what price. Go search for coca cola and I see the price to have it delivered (much higher than in store) and a link to instacart. No pickup options or even prices.

On Sams Club’s website I can see that in store price and order it for pickup.

Again, Costco could keep the things we all like and just have basic 2018 functionality, it isn’t hard.

I bet you’re real fun at parties.

Costcos tech stack is frankly unconscionably bad. It’s the one way in which Sam’s Club crushes them.

There’s no reason they couldn’t do basically all of the good things mentioned in this article plus have a functional website, let me scan and pay with my phone in store, have a handheld scanner at each register, etc.

Came to say this, it would be hard to handicap this one. Shopping tends to be clustered, so if I’m methodical, I can go fill a car load with a lot of stuff and that might be more economical and environmentally friendly than the vans. But if I’m not, I could certainly see how it would be worse.

I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying it averages out to being better or worse.

If you don’t think fireworks are explosives you’re buying the wrong ones.

Right and my point is that whether or not it’s a bad investment makes absolutely no difference to the people who own the shares because the price is divorced from that. SpaceX shares only have to stay irrational for six months for this rule change to have had no effect.

2. You’re misreading that. They do it before the rebalance date, not before it is added to the index. Rebalances only happen every 3-6 months generally, so they definitely are buying it over a period of time, not all at once, specifically so they don’t move markets.

The aggressive ignorance (not my term, I’ve got a better one) is that multiple times this guy just didn’t even respond to the actual point. See his first response to me where he just restated the thing I was clearly replying to, rather than addressing my actual argument, which is that all those people would’ve ended up with the same amount of SpaceX shars at the same time, even if the rules had not changed. He just restated the argument I had already just rebutted, then he did the same thing in this branch.

It does not matter that SpaceX is in the index sooner. The future in six months or 12 months would look the same in either case.

Tesla’s P/E ratio is currently 365. They have less than 1% market share, and declining, weak profits, products that seem to be suffering from weak updates and brand harm due to Elon’s politics, and competitors outpacing them from all sides.

Toyota’s P/E is under ten. They’ll make more money selling cars this quarter than TSLA will in ten years.

TSLA prices have never been within an order of magnitude of reasonable. They’ve been publicly traded for so long that some of the people legally driving them weren’t born when they IPOed. They’re not a startup and haven’t been in a while.

The way you don’t actually address the points people make or even seem to understand them, but rather just keep restating what was already said, makes you a pretty good proxy for the exact view I was talking about, so thanks!

Everybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.

And to be clear, I’m not saying it’s a good thing. I just don’t think it matters so much.

AI has just made it worse, both directly (search doesn’t function like standard search anymore but also nowhere near ChatGPT) and by comparison.

I can go ask Gemini questions that require it to get information from several emails at once like “which x vendor had the lowest price”. Im assuming it can do the same with my texts or, if not yet, it will soon. I had zero such faith with Apple.

I will wait until the fall and see if this looks like the germ of something actually useful before deciding if I’m going to switch.

Yeah it went from bad to worse somehow.

I switched from android to iOS 7 years ago and I’ve actually been debating going back just because of how bad iOS is at AI. And every other facet of my life, I am finding ways for it to save my time on an almost daily basis. And yet on iOS, just finding something from a text Message is still a nightmare.

Siri seems to rarely get better and sometimes actually get worse.

I don’t think earnings have much to do with any of Elon’s projects’ market caps.

No.

Yeah I wouldn’t argue that it’s a good valuation but it may achieve it.

Oh I was wrong, they were forced to go public. At the time any company with $10 million in assets and 500 investors had to go public. Perhaps I misremember them trying to stay private and failing.

But the point remains, it would have been unheard of for a company 1/10 the market valuation of these companies to be private, so the public market is missing a lot of the growth phase now.

The index fund thing seems to me to be an overhyped nothingburger. The seasoning period would just delay the inevitable when a company is launching with a trillion dollar valuation.

The big story is that that is happening at all. It wasn’t that long ago when Facebook had to get special permission from the government to stay private until they got to $100 billion.

The issue here is that public investors are missing out on so much upside.

It’s a footnote because SpaceX is going to be worth trillions. If Twitter were fully written down right after IPO SpaceX’s shares might not even have a bad day.

I just don’t understand why a company with $95m in sales would steal $200k. That’s a fraction of a percent of sales for the year.

There’s now a boycott against them that will easily cost them more than that.

If the case is as this blog says, it cannot be hard to find a lawyer to do this one pro bono. Breach of contract is one of the few things in America where you can sue for your legal fees. If you take over a business you assume it’s contracts even though your name wasn’t on them. You gain anything the business owns but a consignment shop doesn’t own the inventory.

BAM is going to lose millions and for what? Is this article just wrong on substantial facts? Simple greed wouldn’t explain this as it will almost certainly lead to far less money, even in a short period, than returning it.

Something must be missing.

Well, fraud prevention requires them to block some transactions that are ostensibly legal right? To the extent that they can’t always tell if a transaction is fraudulent, any effort to fight fraud will block some number of legal transactions. And if it’s something they object to on moral grounds, they can probably always make a case (usually accurately) that the fraud rates are high.

Fair point. I think we’ve all tried that and it isn’t working, and pointing out to people they’re being annoying could help.

But probably won’t, so you’re probably right.

Do you imagine someone got a stolen credit card, made a linkedin with that name, used the card to attend a live class under the fake ID, or are you just doing the classic hacker news aaaaactually?

Comments like this have ruined this site. We all know that’s never happened once in history.

Who do you recommend as an alternative?

For the first time in their history Google was finding themselves losing market share to ChatGPT. It wasn't a huge amount yet but it was clearly going to become one. That's what this is. The idea that the end user doesn't want this is preposterous. Those of us who make money off the web don't want this but the end user absolutely does.

This is going to happen whether Google does it or not. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

I looked it up, MSFT’s market cap in 2005 was $278 billion and would be like $450 billion in today’s dollars.

OpenAI will IPO soon AI probably more like a trillion.

Crazy.

Most nonprofits don’t have a mission that would benefit from a transition or a trillion dollar product to sell. There would be no real way to profit they wanted to.

They want both.

Oman is not helping them, they are merely being granted tolls by Iran because the strait is shared. Iran has launched several attacks on Oman.