I'm willing to bet that most funds will just change their reconstitution process to give themselves a much longer period to add new IPO stocks to their portfolios and end up avoiding most of the drama.
On the other hand if they don't I'm making popcorn because the lawsuits and political fallout if / when this goes wrong is going to be epic.
Some of the pessimists are absolutely perma-bears who hate any thing to do with Elon to the point of madness, but still doesn't change the fact that this IPO makes no financial sense no matter how reasonably you try to look at it.
I listened to all 3 hours of the Dwarkesh interview with Elon. I would really really love to see mass drivers on the moon, but all the facts were obviously made up on the spot. This wasn't just the usual Elon exaggerating. It was pure fantasy stuff. All the hard engineering questions were just being hand-waved away along with reasons of why the data centers couldn't be here on earth.
Combine that with the fact that Elon will retain complete control of SpaceX. Yeah no. I wouldn't be crazy enough to short the stock but I really don't want any of my money in it either.
It's been fascinating comparing different news sources reporting on this.
If you listened to some of the more X/ Musk friendly new sources this was going to be a slam-dunk and Musk would win. Some of the more left leaning press had the slam-dunk going the other way
Meanwhile the jury took less than 2 hours to throw it out for being filed to late. But I guess that doesn't make news.
My, admittedly cynical, view of it is that the main selling point is that you share your data with the person running the ODoH server.
The truth is that very very few people run their own recursive nameserver. The entirely reasonable assumption for any authoritative nameserver, like .com, is that the query is being asked on behalf of someone else and knowing that a user of your nameserver asked for the ip of sexysheep.com doesn't give them a lot of useful info.
I'm think many ISPs actually sell a lot of data from their recursive nameservers, but I'm willing to bet that almost no-one bothers to sniff port 53 udp traffic going elsewhere.
My vote for the best privacy option is always going to be just run pi-hole with your own recursive nameservers.
no, you are actually telling the relay where to redirect your question from the start (because you are encrypting the question with the public key of the destination resolver) - the relay sending the question where it wants would result in the destination to not be able to decrypt it
If relay and target are operated by the same provider, there is no collusion. Collusion occurs between 2+ parties. You have stipulated that they are the same party.
But then the internet can know that you are the one using your own resolvers and so they can trivially identify your traffic.
Really you need to use some public resolver with a critical mass of other users in order to have any hope for anonymity. But then of course you have to trust that resolver too.
I so wanted it to be true but all his claims, including this mass driver, had numbers that were so outrageous that it was obvious he was just making it up as he went along. All the hard engineering issues were just hand-waved away and all the trivial issues with doing things back down on earth instead were magically insurmountable. This is a modern "Selling swampland in Florida" scam.
I think the real issue is that its still in its painful growth stage and we have a way to go until we will start to understand better where its good and where its a disaster.
I have a co-worker who is really good at herding agents. I've seen him do work in an afternoon what would take more than two weeks without AI, but some of his other work ends up being so bad the rest of us want to string him up by his thumbs.
Its impossible to tell from just looking before hand what the result will be.
Sounds like it’s a force multiplier, both on the good and bad side. That lines up with what I have seen. It’s hard to tell if it’s a net positive or negative.
What's old is new again. I remember getting taught this in business school back in the early 2000s.
It's also counter intuitive but it can dramatically keep your costs down as well. If costs are based on the time spent then the lower the time the lower the costs.
On the other hand if they don't I'm making popcorn because the lawsuits and political fallout if / when this goes wrong is going to be epic.
reply