Some of the shakier dot com companies did, though.
And the dot com bubble collapse of Nortel and Worldcom shows that even well-established companies with significant non-bubble investments are vulnerable if the companies make poor economic decisions (in both of those cases, the collapse was driven by excessively aggressive acquisitions).
Likewise, LLM's won't disappear completely with a stock market crash. But the weaker players might.
From my perspective it's more of a "stay away" type of stock (short or not). The price is not supported by business finance fundamentals, and seems to be pushed upward via the retail market, driven by Elon's gift for selling futurism to the masses. To me, the value of Musk's companies is dangerously dependent on one single person, in a way that I can't think of for any other current company. It makes "investment" in the company more speculative, and closer to other "retail mass" phenomena like "meme stocks" or cryptocurrency.
As an example here, in the 2022 (relatively mild) stock market downturn, when the S&P 500 gave back about 20%, TSLA dropped from a peak in the low 400s, to a low of 122... roughly a 70% drop peak to peak. It's back to ~400 now, and it could go higher again. But, in the next downturn, it could go a lot lower.
Or you could mitigate the next dot-com style crash (which wiped out nearly 80% of the NASDAQ composite).
Back then, it was "day trading" that was one of the warning signs that a bubble was ensuing. There are certainly shades of the day-trading phenomenon in the "r/wallstreetbets" gambling, and wildly overvalued meme stocks like Tesla. And this mad rush to relax the guardrails for what appears to be wildly overvalued IPOs.
Bubbles, and their inevitable collapse, are generally not as big of a problem for younger passive investors, but they can be for older ones. (Hence why I've got a "bond tent", value tilt, and other diversification. I'm at the stage where "underperforming the market" is less of a concern than "mitigation". :) )
This is a much longer running issue than the Obama administration.
Market distortions favoring heavy trucks include:
* The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), enacted in Congress in 1975 under the Ford administration in reaction to the Arab oil embargo, with its tiered structure on passenger vehicles vs. trucks.
* The "Chicken Tax", tariffs on light trucks enacted by Lyndon Johnson as a reaction to French / West German tariffs on chickens. While much of this trade war was repealed, the light truck tariff never was.
* Section 179 tax deductions, which are biased in favor of heavy vehicles. As I understand it, this particular deduction was inserted into the tax code via the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 under Reagan, for the purpose of aiding small businesses that might rely on such.
So it's been, from my perspective, a fairly non-partisan desire from all of US politics, with protectionism as perhaps part of the goal, but perhaps due to other goals that had unintended effects.
Personally, I think that government regulations can only explain so much. Even with the market distortions, trucks tend to be rather expensive compared to smaller vehicles sedans, and that's before factoring in the bad gas mileage. My presumption is that America's vastly more rural landscape contributes just as much to the preference for trucks as government policy.
I do surmise from articles, though, that the above US policies have impacted the ability for lighter pickup trucks to entering the market. I suspect that some smaller pickups, like the small "kei trucks" that seem to have a bit of a following in the US even with all the regulatory hassle, would be much more present if a lot of these protections were removed.
One of the problems with nuclear is, um, it's ability to cause an "extinction event". Sort of.
In that:
* Nuclear power plant failures can be very, very nasty. As in, "producing uninhabitable land for eons" nasty. Yes, dam failures are spectacularly nasty, too (but don't create unlivable land as much). Yes, fossil fuel power plants also are quite bad in a "more silent way" via pollution (plus the occasional centuries-burning coal mine fires etc.). All power sources have problems. But this is a pretty big negative.
* What this means is that big centralized nuclear is also a big target for rogue actors... similar to dams, but not similar to more distributed energy sources like solar or wind. Blowing up a single solar farm or windmill doesn't have a huge impact, relatively speaking, compared to blowing up a nuclear plant. Nuclear plants thus have to spend extra expense protecting themselves against this sort of thing. (And, in the United States at least, classify much of the process of doing so.)
* Nuclear power plants can also be used to produce nuclear weapons. Now this is where the really fun politics begins. Many countries would be really unhappy if their adversary countries start making nuclear weapons from their nuclear power plants. A lot of military stuff has been spent over the last decades trying to prevent such.
This last point is where China's solar panel play actually makes more sense compared to nuclear. Think of the politics involved if China builds a big nuclear point in (insert adversary of some other country here). Could be very, very tricky in many cases. Whereas, there is very little if any politics involved with shipping a solar panel somewhere.
The distributed, small scale nature of solar panels also means that customers in countries with poor centralized power grids (common in developing countries) are able to use them to bypass the current system. This happened previously in many of these countries with mobile phones, where customers were able to bypass poor centralized phone networks. In this aspect, I think the "decentralized" aspect is far more important than the "renewable" aspect... but still.
(There are positives to nuclear, of course; I'm mainly countering the "transcendental" word here. All power sources have plusses and minuses.)
(Note: I have heard of work on smaller scale nuclear systems, but I am not certain if even a small nuclear power device completely resolves political or security concerns.)
Anecdotal experience... but when I use Chrome and switch user agents to a random one that probably wouldn't be too common (in my case, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD i386) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/36.0.1985.125 Safari/537.36), in Chrome Network tools it seems that there were several Javascript pages that were being loaded through a "StaticLoad.aspx" (namely WordEditor.js and Hermes.js scripts), that simply hung while downloading.
Changing the version didn't seem to matter (I couldn't find the latest one for any Linux style OS easily, but I tried "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD i386) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 Safari/537.36" with the same results). However, Android type user agent strings like "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.0.4; Galaxy Nexus Build/IMM76B) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.133 Mobile Safari/535.19" load fine.
Not knowing the code I have no idea what this could mean, but I suspect you're 100% right here, there's some server side rendering that does different things based on user agents, and it's having trouble on the "other UA" category for some reason.
And the dot com bubble collapse of Nortel and Worldcom shows that even well-established companies with significant non-bubble investments are vulnerable if the companies make poor economic decisions (in both of those cases, the collapse was driven by excessively aggressive acquisitions).
Likewise, LLM's won't disappear completely with a stock market crash. But the weaker players might.