[JumpCrisscross]

> They changed the rules for one person

The timing isn’t great. But this was being discussed for a while. If it were only SpaceX, I’m doubtful the rules would have changed. But a tech index not including SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic and SK Hynix is a bit silly. And in the end, on index inclusion, the stock still fell.

> simp…Twitter or Reddit

Mm hmm.

[yobutdude]

> A bit silly

Mm hmm

I mean the planets would fly off orbit

...such thoughtless justification is not really disproving comparison to "anything goes" discourse of other platforms with a nonsense appeal to empty normalization

100% designed to offload an empty bag onto retail investors

SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy

It has no real sustainable business unlike SK Hynix, very much like OAI and Anthropic

What's silly is propping up ephemeral companies that burn resources and produce nothing

[JumpCrisscross]

> offload an empty bag onto retail investors

This was a popular meme on Twitter and Reddit and YouTube, granted. The math doesn’t make sense with an index like the Nasdaq 100. But I’ll admit it’s a good story.

> SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy

This is also true of every defence contractor.

[yobutdude]

Colonies on Mars is a good story

Super intelligence is a good story

These companies are built on little more than "a good story" for politicians to sell to voters ..."i voted in Congress for that!"

You're arguing semantics

Economic math is being leveraged against innumerates as euphemism and obfuscation of same old avarice and political corruption. Biology is self selecting. There's no using rhetoric to wave off the ground truth is just a minority of the total population ensuring their own lived experience is put above everyone else's

[JumpCrisscross]

> a minority of the total population ensuring their own lived experience is put above everyone else's

That’s a new use of that term!

[yobutdude]

No it is not. Appeals to equality of condition have existed for centuries. Among them are that term used verbatim.

Ignored the other points and redirected to the least salient. Will take it as acceptance you realized how silly your carrying water for people who don't know or care you exist is.

Age of account makes it clear you need the social system to remain solvent as you're likely rich on paper. Nothing more.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ignored the other points

In this comment [1]? Seriously, what salient points were you trying to make?

Nobody is arguing anything is fairly valued. That's your straw man. There's a bit ironically complaining about innumeracy in a series of comments with zero numbers. Then a general appeal to Twitter tropes around sheeple and whatnot.

If anything, the quality of this comment thread sort of points to the quality of the argument for SpaceX being included in the Nasdaq 100 being corrupt. It's based on vibes and feels. Which is a good story–it's clearly convinced a bunch of people to watch another video, click on another ad.

> Age of account makes it clear you need the social system to remain solvent as you're likely rich on paper. Nothing more

...genuine question, how are you connecting that observation to that conclusion?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925695

[s1artibartfast]

How much of your money did they take? Are you one of those people that went all in on WallStreetbets?

Who should be at the gambling commissioner that allows such things? Should people be made Wards of the state and finances placed in Trump's noble stewardship?

[JumpCrisscross]

I didn’t consider that angle—thanks. I don’t day trade and don’t think anyone should. Lots of folks do anyway, however, and then they predictably lose money. It should be similarly predictable that they’ll then get upset and lash out, sometimes in the correct direction, often not.

(And the influencers pitching day trading and whatnot, lo and behold, are probably also selling the corruption of indices and why you should buy their crypto to not be a "simp" or whatnot.)

[s1artibartfast]

Mostly like I think they simply long for communal property ownership with a benevolent overseer that invests and distributes resources according to values that match their own.

Therefore they are offended that private individuals can allocate as they choose, and make losing gambles on other private institutions.

Some of these people were taught indexes are safe havens, and recoil at the idea they might not be safe as milk.

[wubbawibba]

When faced with an information asymmetry (lack of knowledge of other posters) you engage in a kind of phrenology... taking a few sentences of others and filling in huge gaps in your knowledge with biases that you cannot confirm are true and meaningful

Grammatically correct sentences you can come up with are not at all guaranteed to be accurate.

Sincerely... stop it. Get some help. You're a typical human dimwit. Your grasp of contemporary economic language is not a sign of correctness. Just your own limited vocabulary and literacy. You're repeating language you memorized. You're not solving the gap in information.

Surviving this long does not mean you are especially

[s1artibartfast]

Welcome to the human condition buddy.

Indirect realism or the distinction between noumena and phenomena does not mean a model is inaccurate, and it certaianly doesnt mean your hot take is the correct one.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they simply long for communal property ownership with a benevolent overseer

I’m not impressed by the other account. But I respect your opinion. Why do you think they have convictions? (Versus waffling on memes.)

[s1artibartfast]

I think it is largely memes, but I think that is at the heart of the meme and why it replicates. Most of the time this is more intuitions than explicit convictions about how the world should operate.

That sombody should fix all these messy distrubted market process by replacing it with an engineered solution.

The obvious counterpoint is to direct them to who would be directing that top down system.

Everyone can get behind an omnicient and benevolent central planner on paper.