Good point. Unfortunately, I couldn't find where their funding comes from from a quick cursory search (and I don't just mean the funding for graduate students, or salaries). If anyone could provide details about this, I would much appreciate it
That is a good point but this is temporary. SPAC lords will reduce these margins soon enough. It is in their direct incentive to do so. This is a speculative assertion by me (one that I'm quite confident about), but I'm not sure one can be certain about the future
Look at the comments below which mention 1 bullet point and do not look holistically at the problem and the solution. I have been finding this to be the case on a lot of HN comments recently
I do not claim to be making an impartial analysis myself. Just putting out some points which have been omitted by the Wall Street-funded academic paper
Whenever you have some instrument attacking Wall Street (in this case, the IPO itself), papers come out trying to protect them. This does not mention drawbacks of the IPO the SPAC is getting rid of - the 6-7% investment banking fee, the hassle of doing several roadshows, the near 100% IPO pop due to which the company raises half of what it would have (amounting to a 50% fee so to say which goes into the pockets of institutional investors) amid other things. It is sad that critical reasoning is dead on HN. Nothing is ever purely good or purely bad. An impartial cost-benefit analysis needs to be done which is sadly impossible for someone whose funding comes from the deep pockets of Wall Street and institutional investors.
I have not even begun diving into the benefits of SPACs - some of which are the opportunity for audacious bets like Virgin Galactic holdings which Wall Street would assume to be a loss making company, benefits of PIPEs in SPACs (which would be the topic for a whole new post), the speed of going public.
I'm not quite sure that SIMD is a relevant benchmark for comparing the processors. Wouldn't the GPU and/or neural engine take care of SIMD on the ARM Macbook?
I think it might be a great business model for movie theaters to offer themselves. This would be true especially if their gains from selling subscriptions (and from selling food) outperforms their marginal loss on opening up more shows in theaters. I think the margin loss on opening up shows should be quite low, assuming real estate and buying permission to screen movies be the main cost. I believe the marginal cost of more shows - hiring employees to clean up the seats, manage crowds (including entry / ticket checking), and wear and tear of seats might be relatively lower.
The business model just doesn't make sense if you're buying seats at a high cost from cinema theaters, and selling subscription passes. The trump card here would be to get movie chains to offer unlimited seats on your platform in return for a high percentage of the subscription fee. Negotiation skills matter!
I have similar experience while reading any other material as well or while watching a TV show like Billions. However, I currently believe that is part of the value and not majorly a distraction. That exploration leads me to discover directions which the author has not taken, tie the story to my own experiences, think about it further and internalize what I have read if it is important.