Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

<div class=“tenor-gif-embed” data-postid=“18887547” data-share-method=“host” data-aspect-ratio=“1.34454” data-width=“100%”><a href=“tenor.com/view/oh-no-oh-no-anyway-gif-18887547”>Oh No GIF</a>from <a href=“tenor.com/search/oh-gifs”>Oh GIFs</a></div> <script type=“text/javascript” async src=“tenor.com/embed.js”></script>

Tenorhttps://tenor.com/view/oh-no-oh-no-anyway-gif-18887547by Sli_Luiniex

Replying to @⁨shirasho@feddit.online⁩

Indeed, someone with a deep fanaticism for Musk posted exactly that scenario as inevitable. This was to stand by his man when Musk asserted that SpaceX should be worth more than everything else on earth combined (he was pissed that spcx had fallen).

The dude claimed that by 2038 the 20 biggest companies would all be entirely space based exclusively, and that globally SpaceX would be the sole provider of space technology and the other 19 companies would be tenants of SpaceX. It all made sense to him because space is bigger than earth, right?

I can’t find it, but among the usual suspects (space mining, space datacenters, terra forming), I was especially amused that his hypothetical “space banking company”, because for some reason the financials of space companies needed to be managed by a company that could get stuff launched into space?

Replying to @⁨somethingsnappy@lemmy.world⁩

Don’t forget power it as well. Watched a video where someone did the math and to generate the power required of a typical data center you’d need a solar array something like 40 times the size of the one on the ISS. It would be an absolute behemoth of a satellite and that’s without taking into account the cooling which would likely double the size again. Of course once you get that big then you have to worry about keeping the thing in orbit because moving that much mass isn’t exactly easy. No matter how you slice it it’s a stupid ass idea that doesn’t work.

Replying to an earlier post

Power is pretty much the only part of space data centres that does make sense. You can put them in an orbit to get 24hr solar power and its stronger than on the ground as there’s no atmosphere in the way. Large foldable solar panels are available, and unlike radiators you don’t have to pump liquids through them.

Other than hype (which is by far the major driving force behind companies talking about them) access to that power without regulation is the reason you would want to put them in space.

Replying to @⁨anomnom@sh.itjust.works⁩

Could you live without learning a made-up assembly-like programing language just so you can have your solar panels track the sun, only to find out you know very little about “azimuth” and “elevation” and now your potatoes aren’t growing because you can’t power that grow light.

I mean, you could, but are you even living at that point?

Did you mention how fun it is to find out you got your gaseous fuel stoichiometry wrong? It’s a blast.

Replying to @⁨ByteJunk@lemmy.world⁩

I used to teach tech making to students in a program and we did all kinds of little projects with microcontrollers and basic electronics, but also laser cutters and early 3D printing (pre makerbot). Almost 20 years ago now, so most of the documentation is lost to time.

Arduinos are fun to play with though, there’s lots of examples and libraries out there, and the clone market means you can get them in 5 packs for only a few dollars. Motor controller boards, all kinds of sensor breakouts and tiny servos are also cheap as chips these days.

You could spend the rest of your free time on that too!

Replying to @⁨anomnom@sh.itjust.works⁩

Never messed with arduinos specifically, but I’ve built a few projects throught the years with ESPs, those things are dirt cheap and very fun to work with! Nothing with motors though - mostly attaching them to sensors and batteries to collect data, or control lighting (LED/RGB strips, etc).

There’s just *way * too many interesting things in the world, and so little free time! It’s a tragedy really… :)

Hope you can find the time and life conditions to embrace the projects you love. Have a great day!

Replying to @⁨Womble@piefed.world⁩

It still doesn’t make sense because of the power density. The size of the solar array you would need is completely impractical. Even a “large foldable solar panel” isn’t going to cut it. Most satellites are relatively low power and even then the size of the solar arrays they have relative to the volume of the satellite is massive. Something as energy hungry as a data center pretty much demands a “small” nuclear generator to power it and the practicality of getting that into orbit nevermind the issues when it eventually de-orbits makes that a nonstarter.

Replying to an earlier post

I gotta disagree that the stock market is inherently gambling. If an investor does their due diligence, looks at the fundamentals of a company, and makes an informed decision to invest, they are very likely to see some sort of return on that investment.

Unfortunately, we’re deep into “vibe investing” territory now, where stats like P/E ratios no longer seem to matter to either institutional investors or many casual investors. Where people are dumping their money is now disconnected from where it’s wise to dump money

Replying to an earlier post

It’s totally different though. Sports betting is an all or nothing affair, you put money on an outcome, you either win or lose, then it’s over.

Day trading (and now vibe trading/meme stocks) may be similar, however investing in a company with good fundamentals long-term carries significantly less risk.

Many companies offer dividends, so you can make money even without the stock price itself increasing. And in holding a diversified portfolio of quality stocks long-term, meaning you ignore market fluctuations, the risk of losing everything is basically zero, and the likelihood of your portfolio increasing in value approaches 100%

Replying to @⁨protist@retrofed.com⁩

Yes, but you can’t say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too.

It’s the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling.

Replying to @⁨protist@retrofed.com⁩

Its because they make money buying whatever goes up, instead of holding selected companies for a long time.

Think about it. You could have made 150% by holding micron for three months. Big tech companies take five years to make that much. So that’s why these investors have to jump on the bandwagon no matter what the fundamentals are.

They also sell as soon as it starts to show weakness, which is why micron dropped 30% in like 3 days.

Replying to @⁨kinsnik@lemmy.world⁩

Which is amazing because it’s somewhere between 4th and 15th place in the LLM race. Let’s say you really believe in a winner-takes-all scenario for AI where the winner gets to monetize harder than Google… Why would you invest in SpaceX? I don’t understand the scenario in which SpaceX makes loads of money off of AI. Maybe with space datacenters, assuming that’s even possible? But if that’s the plan, why spend lots of money training their own model rather than renting out racks of GPUs?

Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

All the analysts at the beginning were shouting that the IPO was overvalued.

Making outrageous promises and failing to deliver is Elon Musk’s brand.

If you have money to invest, and you lost it in SpaceX without doing your due research, I have no sympathy for you.

(I have no money to invest. I was just following SpaceX and Musk’s dubious trillionaire status. He’s still, way, way too rich.)

Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

Investors really are just a bunch of toddlers with no memory, no critical thinking skills, and no real skills at all, actually.

If you lost money investing in Musk, I not only have no sympathy but I’m actually going to laugh at you for as long as I have air in my lungs. This, in between my sadness for the lost mkney that could have been used productively to help people.

Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

I dunno why yall are celebrating this.

Elon basically gaslighted retail investors, and managers for your retirement funds, into transferring wealth directly to Elon Musk.

Other index funds were forced to buy SpaceX at the IPO price. They literally had no choice, even if they knew they’d lose money. And this includes any overseas ones with exposure to US indices.

This is not something to celebrate. We all just got conned, even if you didn’t buy SpaceX directly.

Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

I thought SpaceX was at least on the right track with Starship, but then I read this article talking about how even one trip to the Moon could take up to 20 launches:

nextbigfuture.com/…/nasa-says-up-to-20-spacex-sta…

NASA Says Up to 20 SpaceX Starship Refueling Launches Per Moon MissionNextBigFuture.comNASA Says Up to 20 SpaceX Starship Refueling Launches Per Moon Mission | NextBigFuture.comA NASA official said Artemis will need 20 SpaceX Lunar Starship launches per moon landing. On Nov. 17, Lakiesha Hawkins, assistant deputy associate

Replying to @⁨melfie@lemmy.zip⁩

So if we assume they manage to build a fully rapidly reusable rocket and launch infrastructure (the latter of which is incredibly questionable), the only marginal cost increase is just labor to conduct the launches and consumables.

And the physics says more like 17 launches, but at the end of the day, that’s just how much it costs to send 200 tons to the moon, AND bring the rocket back. They’re not jettisoning stages or leaving the rocket behind in the moon like Apollo.

The numbers are mind boggling, and short of nuclear rockets and space elevators, there is literally no way to do this short of many, many, many tiny launches, and it’s way less risky to have those tiny launches refill a tanker in LEO than to send 20 launches to the moon independently. Plus there would be no way to send large pre assembled components like nuclear reactors and construction/manufacturing equipment. Everything would have to be manufactured and assembled on the moon.

Replying to @⁨CyberSeeker@discuss.tchncs.de⁩

So I’m not sure what the marginal cost per launch is. I remember reading that the propellant between Starship and Supeheavy is something like $100M per launch, which would put 20 launches at around $2B and would make the re-usability not actually a cost saver vs. an expendable rocket. However, I just read the article below that says the launch cost is more like $3-$5M, so I may have been completely off base in my original assumption.

spaceorbitals.com/…/starship-v3-cost-per-kg-2026/

spaceorbitals.comHow Cheap Is Starship V3 Really? A Plain-English Look at the 2026 $/kg-to-LEO Math | SpaceOrbitalsStarship V3 debuted Flight 12 in May 2026. We break down the new $/kg-to-LEO economics, what Raptor 3 reuse actually changes, and why every commercial space mat

Replying to @⁨melfie@lemmy.zip⁩

SpaceX has done some impressive engineering feats but so far the only part of the business that has been profitable is Starlink. More importantly, Elon merged his AI business into Starlink shortly before it went public. I read somewhere that approximately 93% of the value of the IPO was based on the AI side and its wildly speculative projections for future income.

My point is that it almost doesn’t matter what they do with Starship, the company is massively overvalued unless Grok suddenly becomes the most popular AI in the world and everyone begins tithing to it.

Replying to @⁨chahn.chris@piefed.social⁩

Because too many people gamble (sorry “invest”) based on vibes and memes these days rather than fundamentals of the business and maintaining a properly diversified stock portfolio with a realistic time horizon.

They don’t understand the concept of a pump and dump, and only see the people bragging about their quick wins rather than the majority that lose.

Replying to @⁨godsammitdam@lemmy.zip⁩

To an extent, they weren’t betting on the business, they were betting on the masses eating up the stock.

And they were at least initially right, and cashing out 2-4 days after the IPO certainly worked for and of them. Stock going down required some significant portion of them to take their winnings.

They were betting on the stupidity of the retail investor, not the fundamentals of the business.

Replying to @⁨jj4211@lemmy.world⁩

Had this stock started being included in normal people’s 401ks or pensions yet?

Some of my meager wealth is in that kind of place. And while I want nothing to do with SpaceX, I think it will be forced on me soon. I only get the choice of vanguard x, y or z.

That was my understanding of the long term scheme, and the goal of the various rule changes allowing this stock to be included in indexes early.

Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

It’s so hard to believe how people put so much money into a completely unknown stock on day one. These people are not on their first day as investors but they are sure acting like it.

I think too many kids grew up on social media and believe whatever they read there. Fed by algorithms.

Even though, these guys have so much money so I guess it’s adults? It’s pretty shocking.

Replying to @⁨sanitation@lemmy.today⁩

I’ve been thinking about founding a secular religion. One of its commandments will be “Thou shalt not be a mark.” You have a positive obligation to acquire at least a modicum of street smarts. It’s a special case of the principle of peace through being a hard target.

I understand that some people are incapable of taking on even that level of responsibility for themselves. They deserve special care. As for the unwilling, they’re like bad drivers who expect others to compensate for their recklessness. I’m sorry if they got conned by Musk, but things like that happen when you stick your finger into the rotating blade.