[mbesto]

> simply that most bets are made intelligently with serious intent.

That is NOT what you said. You said this:

> Why would they all put money into this if it is so obvious to all of you that it is not going to work?

In other words: "if these companies are putting all of this money to work then it's obvious it will work"

So, no you didn't simply say "their bets are made intelligently with serious intent". No one is saying these companies aren't serious about it, they are saying there are legitimate physics limitations involved here that are either being ignored or the companies are betting on a novel scientific breakthrough.

> your take on investors is naive and largely incorrect - its the musical chairs theory of markets.

Then you clearly have never worked with investors before.

[simianwords]

Here’s our point of disagreement: I think smart people have made a bet in this with serious intent after considering all the pitfalls. You think they are either deliberately ignoring it (so ridiculous) or they are betting on a scientific breakthrough.

It’s too comical to even address the “they are ignoring it part” so I’ll ignore it.

I would agree with you that part of their bet might involve hoping for breakthroughs and the investment analysis probably factored it in.

Lots of earlier investments have banked on breakthroughs like this.

Also your opinion on how markets work is naive and unscientific.

[mbesto]

> Also your opinion on how markets work is naive and unscientific.

You sure about that?

https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/21/1/19/157439...