I agree its risky. Perhaps I'm being pedantic but seems weird to do an entire article on Musk's vision for space and not once mention starlink or the satelite side of the business.
The not-up-to-date person reading this would truly think that the billions of dollars funding this by Musk are like a side project done simply because of his dreams of terraforming Mars. Maybe Musk is serious about that - but if described with starlink you realize its much less of a "billionaire hobby obsession" and more of a "potentially profitable business (with bragging rights too)"
>Bezos, Musk and Richard Branson seem animated by a lofty goal: securing the future of humanity by going into space.
This seems like a very under-researched statement. Bezos and Musk clearly see huge profits to be made flying satellites for use on earth. Space is sexy - and that's why its used as the marketing gimmick by these companies. For an article so critical of them its odd they took the promotional material of these companies at face value.
I obviously realize that influenza does not attack the body in the same way with the same receptors - but it obviously attacks the body in its own unique way.
It rarely causes serious health consequences but for the people it does (I've known younger people sent hospital with it) are there long term consequences on the same order of magnitude? It doesn't seem like the data really exists for this.
I do wonder if this is proportional to your symptoms/proportional to other ailments.
For instance, is someone with Covid (who was on the verge of needing oxygen) more likely to have long term symptoms than someone the same age who got the flu/pneumonia (and was also on the verge of needing oxygen).
In other words - is there something unique about Covid? Or is that any disease that sets you back has serious long-term consequences, and Covid is just statistically much more likely to do that than the flu, for example.
I honestly am cool with NASA getting lots more money but also seems clear that the beurocrats have realized the best way to secure more funding now is no longer to make a national security argument - but one involving overhyping the evidence of aliens.
Would be more interesting/honest if they differentiated between companies that have declined versus just mergers.
The AEI is making the point there is more creative destruction than people think - which is fair.
But Mobil is counted as if it isn't in the top 500 companies now because it merged. But it wasn't just gobbled up - if it was independent it would clearly be top 500 still. If you were a shareholder in 1955 you'd be pleased.
I've used website blockers before on Twitter. I would still go incognito to find people for updates on things but the extra two clicks def nudged me from doing it as often.
Warren says he understands how much Microsoft is getting off of royalties for Windows but is unsure about his confidence in a 20 year bet compared to a company like Coke which sells Cola.
Warren turned out to be very wrong in investing in Coke over MSFT. However, his reasoning wasn't awful. The entire e-mail pleading the case to him is about how great of a business selling the OS is. However, if Microsoft had stuck to that the stock would not be doing so well now. Perhaps he and the person pleading MSFT's case were wrong to view Microsoft's business as operating system related instead of tech and computing more generally. I'd say both were about the same levels of wrong but one had a better outcome.
The not-up-to-date person reading this would truly think that the billions of dollars funding this by Musk are like a side project done simply because of his dreams of terraforming Mars. Maybe Musk is serious about that - but if described with starlink you realize its much less of a "billionaire hobby obsession" and more of a "potentially profitable business (with bragging rights too)"