runako

What does this add to a discussion of a change in colorectal cancer rates?

One thing I learned about colonoscopy is that it is not _only_ a test. I understand that the removal of polyps is a cancer-reducing mechanism in addition to being a diagnostic. Less invasive tests do not have this property.

> You are benchmarking against an outlier stock with a cult following (Elon Musk) and diversified sources of revenue

So in this case, diversified revenue is a drag on SpaceX because all the non-AI revenue is growing considerably slower.

But your point about Musk is taken. Cerebras went out in May, and despite being a hardware company is trading at 37x sales. Palantir trades at 78x, CrowdStrike at 50x, Cloudflare at 47x, etc. Anthropic is growing significantly faster than any of those companies. I'm not making the case that Anthropic will/should trade at any of those, just that Anthropic trading in the range of the P/S of SpaceX would not be crazy, and it would not require Musk to be involved.

> A valuation based on comparisons has to have more than 1 peer to compare against

Yes, the best peers are "public pure play frontier model providers trading in the US." There are none. SpaceX is closest, despite not really being a frontier provider and definitely not a pure play. But you are correct that investors will use a basket of stocks. It is silly to suggest SpaceX will not be in that basket.

You absolutely can make an AI doomer basket to model Anthropic. Use "real infrastructure companies" as the connective tissue since AI wants to be infra. In your basket put Caterpillar, Kroger, The Southern Company, AT&T, Comcast, and ExxonMobil. You can absolutely make the argument that Anthropic should trade more like them than like CrowdStrike or Cloudflare, that is a coherent position. Then based on that infra peer group, calculate a valuation. I think this model will be much less accurate in the near term than a model that uses other high-growth tech companies.

Price discovery is part of the fun of IPOs! The doomer model could be right, the stock value could collapse toward irrelevance as fast as the exchange's circuit breakers will allow!

I mean, yes. You are raising points, using Wall Street lingo, that are rightfully raised about every IPO, ever.

To be clear: I do not have a financial interest in this, and will not be buying the IPO. I very much am just describing the world as it is.

> Some people will benchmark Anthropic vs. SpaceX, that doesn't make it a smart approach.

Yeah, I would not pay 62x sales for SpaceX. And I don't buy IPOs. I'm not endorsing these values, I am saying benchmarking against peers is what investors commonly do.

> A normal thing is to consider risk, liabilities, cashflow, how diversified revenue streams are etc., and other things which you seem to be missing.

I'm not missing those things, I am not including them here because being "right" is rarely how markets value companies. (Also because the rest of that stuff is in the S-1.)

It's possible to build a "correct" model of a high-growth high-tech company that looks primarily at risk, liabilities, cashflow, and diversity of revenue streams. That model might put Anthropic at (say) a $100B valuation. That "correct" model is going to be less predictive than a model that starts from what similar firms are trading at in public markets. I personally am more interested in predictive power than correctness when evaluating stocks.

Fair, I misread the filing.

Larger point stands. SpaceX is commanding a 62x sales multiple, whether or not you personally believe price:sales should be relevant. SpaceX's AI operation is smaller and growing slower than Anthropic's. It's reasonable to expect investors to benchmark Anthropic against SpaceX, it would be silly not to do so. A normal thing one would expect investors to do is assign a higher multiple to a company that grows faster.

There are a set of mistakes in what you wrote, but

> SpaceX has more assets than liabilities.

is definitely a choice thing to write on the day SpaceX announced a $40B debt deal to purchase compute to run other companies' models. Based on available information, this will put SpaceX into a place where it has more liabilities than assets.

As another check, SpaceX is trading at ~62x sales with a growth rate in the 30% range. Assigning the same sales multiple puts Anthropic at ~$2T market cap. Add in a factor for much faster growth (and non-GAAP profitability) and $3T is a really easy place to end up.

This is so important in analyzing these commitments. Anthropic's commitments will make them a Top 10 customer at many of their vendors. (Even at Google/Amazon, how many other customers do they have with $100B+ committed?)

Those vendors would very much like to retain as much of that business as possible. If the space goes sideways, I would very much expect some kind of renegotiation/work out.

Page 40 if your browser's search function does not work.

Say more about that? The economics look better than I was expecting.

Inclusion of SAFEs makes this IMHO the most plausible explanation.

I do not expect to find that Anthropic invested enough in the SAFEs of other companies to lose $80B on their investments.

Estimates have their annualized revenue in the range of $150m. Anthropic alone takes ~ two days to do that revenue.

OpenRouter is not a useful signal.

The twins I had in mind when I wrote that were deported to Guatemala[1]. No, it's not okay to deport citizens and later return them. They were illegally arrested and held, then deported. (As you prepare to defend this, do note that the Trump-appointed US attorney has already said it was a bad deportation that should not have happened.)

I encourage you to read the article to the end, it's not very long. The core point you will see is that the illegal deportation was facilitated by ICE ignoring the Fifth Amendment as is its stated SOP. (This is another way of describing the policy of rapidly deporting people without due process.)

This gentleman born in Colorado was deported to Mexico[2] before being allowed to defend himself in a court. This is again a clear Constitutional violation that would not have happened had the required due process been provided.

I will pause here to point out that US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship, even if they "look foreign" or "sound foreign." Texas drivers' licenses do not prove citizenship; most Texans do not own a picture ID that will prove their citizenship. And if they did own such proof, they are still not required to carry it on their person, even if they do not "look like citizens."

If you think you know someone's citizenship status but have not personally seen their birth certificate or immigration documents, you are just engaging in bias.

Anyway, yes, citizens are deported. Many more are "detained" based on racial profiling that SCOTUS has endorsed. I've provided a couple of links, but if you don't trust these you can typically go to primary sources at e.g. DOJ in cases where citizens have won re-entry to their country.

1 - https://www.newsweek.com/ice-deported-two-us-citizen-childre...

2 - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/30/texas-us-citizen-dep...

Yes, Costco's proprietary program has different rules from Amazon's proprietary program. This is obvious.

I am suggesting that for a manufacturer larger than the very smallest, compliance is simple. They just create another SKU (or brand) and sell it for less off Amazon. Voila, the customer cannot purchase the same product for less money off of Amazon.

> barring you from entry into certain other countries

This is not a restriction placed by the US government, is it?

There really should be a time limit on revocation.

re: offices, it's just President & VP that are (Constitutionally) off the table, right?

Yeah, I'm going further and saying there should be a time limit on even the fraud piece. If a person lied on their application 50 years ago, it's too late.

The government should only get a finite period of time to press the issue. (Like with most crimes.)

You initially wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE illegally deporting US citizens, even going so far as to define plural. Now you say it was just those two (which I found in under 5 minutes), certainly there were no others.

You wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE arresting US citizens of fake immigration charges. Now you characterize ICE as making up bogus "obstruction" charges to arrest US citizens. I'm not sure it matters what fake (or, I'll use the synonym you prefer: "bogus") charge goes on the sheet. By nitpicking, you've conceded that there should be masked secret police harassing US citizens over whom they have no jurisdiction.

You are not willing to engage with the core problem issue that I have raised repeatedly, which is that ICE engages in Constitutional violations as a standard operating procedure. For that reason, I'm out.

The Garcia case illustrates the various lies embedded in ICE. They say they target people with deportation orders, which is obviously false based on ICE statements and testimony in this and other cases.

It also highlights the importance of adherence to the due process guarantees of the Constitution; Garcia was deported before being allowed to prove his citizenship in court. A US citizen is allowed to have had a passport issued in another country; how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name? The main point here is the Constitution prescribes how all this is to be handled, and ICE does not want to do it that way so they don't. That's a huge problem here.

Anyway, you asked for names. I'll just pull from the ProPublica database. Most of these boil down to ICE habitually violating Constitutional due process. I'm omitting "obstruction" charges. This person:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bronx-man-wrongfully-de...

These two people were deported on fake immigration charges, and then deported. Two individuals, "people," being the plural of "person." "Fake" charges, because people born here are not subject to immigration charges.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/03/12/orlando-born-twin...

This citizen was illegally arrested:

https://www.investigatemidwest.org/a-new-immigration-strateg...

I am going to pause here to remind you that citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American." Many/most Americans do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Fewer carry one. Most children do not have picture IDs at all.

And why should they? We are not required to do carry proof of citizenship, even if we are physically proximate to people who are not here legally. Which none of us generally know about the people near us. Outside of my family, I have only seen a handful of citizenship documents of other people I assume are citizens. I would not testify to anyone's citizenship outside of my family, whose citizenship documents I personally procured.

Here's a citizen being arrested because ICE agents did not like his accent. Again, a reminder that many citizens, even of those born here, have accents. That does not change their citizenship in any way or require them to carry proof of citizenship.

https://www.kptv.com/2026/01/18/border-patrol-agent-detains-...

Et cetera.

> after naturalization

Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.

Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?

Since we're nitpicking, you are still not correct.

US citizens cannot be deported.

Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.

Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.

US citizens cannot be deported.

(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)

"fake immigration charges" are what they apply to people born here, so that they can deport them. The charges are facially fake because a person born here cannot have immigrated here.

There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.

> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization

You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.

In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.

This is all correct. The implication is the only long-term solution is dissolution of DHS.

Whatever functions we need can be rebuilt from scratch later. But this is a rebuild moment, not a refactor moment.

Let's be clear here that this is explicitly not just surveillance. This is surveillance in service of abducting people without due process. We can debate surveillance in the abstract, but this specifically is a feeder program to a system that has illegally deported US citizens without any due process. (Which would have, at step 1, indicated that US citizens cannot be deported.)

This is surveillance as part of a department that explicitly says it is not bound by US law or the Constitution.

All of that makes this program materially different than any other US domestic surveillance program or proposal of which I am aware.

"one of the components that caused former intelligence contractors’ concern was that ERO ONE agents will analyze both classified and nonclassified information to produce “network, link and relationship” analyses."

Should the federal government be tracking our interpersonal relationships?

Should an immigration officer be privy to the timing and manner of communications that I, a citizen, have with other citizens? Why?

Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?

Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1]. Some US citizens have been deported.

US citizens "can't" be deported, but ICE has supralegal powers. Should we have a law enforcement agency that is not bound by our laws? Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?

1 - https://projects.propublica.org/american-citizens-detained-d...

Isn't this like Costco requiring manufacturers to offer SKUs at Costco that are not sold anywhere else? Or mattress stores offering to match price knowing full well that the SKUs in their store are not sold elsewhere?

This policy feels like incentive enough for Chinese manufacturers to not build behind a single brand, so the policy will not apply. Materially the same product, different SKU under a different brand name.

Feels trivially easy to get around this policy.

"Services" includes everything from iCloud storage to AppleCare to Apple Card to Apple Music & Apple TV subscriptions.

Services growth is only tracking slightly ahead of installed base growth. One theory of Services was that it would grow high-margin business organically alongside the growth of the installed base. More iPhone users => more iCloud subscriptions. Notably, this growth rate is roughly predictable even without ads being a factor.

Don't forget Safari. Most of the sites I visit in Safari are absolutely jammed full of ads.

Anthropic likely would not be saying, in October, that they planned to go public next month, if this were also true of their business.

In the last ~month, OpenAI announced a delay to its IPO and Anthropic put a relatively near-term range on its IPO date. These are very different signals.

Researching what the article meant by "rocket" (I assumed it was a Britishism), I found this article that includes more pictures.

https://www.aol.com/articles/unassuming-bungalow-hides-netwo...