this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
102 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14392 readers
453 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

hahaha jokes on you I have no money for retirement anyway

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 28 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Does this mean people are being forced to buy Spacex stonks somehow?

[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 38 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes, I laid it out in more detail in another reply, but index funds buy shares of every company in an index (S&P 500, NASDAQ, etc.) as a way of investing in the entire market or a sector. This is seen as very safe since presumably over the long term line goes up. By waiving all of these requirements all of these hedge funds and retirement funds that use these index funds will be forced to immediately buy huge numbers of SpaceX shares and pump up the price right after the IPO and then hold the bag as the price goes back down.

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 24 points 2 weeks ago

Boy life has really been good to Elon, I mean sure he's failed upwards, his exes hate him, his kids hate him, but he's got a legion of nimrod fans and literally all the money in the world.

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

But, why? If anyone can see that shit is not really worth their stupid self-asigned price, why would they actually buy that bag of shit?

[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

https://archive.vn/dqVcc

This article goes over it briefly. But it doesn't really cover how SpaceX got the waivers other than stating that index providers are becoming less risk averse and more willing to make these exceptions. It is just with the very large size of the SpaceX IPO and the fact that it is not profitable and its valuation being based on large scale space travel soon becoming a thing and everyone getting their internet from starlink soon that this is such an extremely bad idea.

[–] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

based on large scale space travel soon becoming a thing

Of all the stupid business plans... I really do not understand this. Who the fuck wants to go to "space"? There's nothing there. literally no there there. Elon Musk has not even been "there". Has a single person ever gone twice in a recreational capacity?

More fun to go to IMAX or roller coaster.

and everyone getting their internet from starlink

My understanding is that from a technical perspective this is implausible but at least it kind of makes sense as a desire. A powerful wfi router in the sky.

Even if it were technically plausible, the telecom monopolies being as they are, it would be a long slow row to hoe displacing them.

[–] 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs@hexbear.net 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I just wish that the billionaires lining up to shoot themselves into space on shoddily constructed hardware could find a less ecologically devastating way to do it, like maybe a really damn big trebuchet.

[–] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

I think it's worth the hit to the atmosphere.

[–] ClassIsOver@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

I just want them to try going to space, make it, and then have something go wrong that just causes them to drift, all while being in communication with Earth. I want to witness them come to terms with all of their wealth and connections not being willing or able to get them back to Earth.

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ever since I was a kid I wanted to go to space. But only because I loved and still love science

[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Of all the stupid business plans... I really do not understand this. Who the fuck wants to go to "space"?

Mars bases and colonization is what Musk tries to sell. Similarly asteroid mining, data centers and factories in space, and massively increased rollout of satellites. All of these are stupid because they all rely on massively over-inflating the upsides and really thoroughly underestimating the costs and expenses of doing things in space, even if we could theoretically put some of these things up there. The only plausible part of the plan that makes sense is increased demand for satellites, but that includes a lot of double-dealing, since Starlink is going to be a supposed driver of that.

and everyone getting their internet from starlink

Similarly I don't think it is theoretically impossible. I have not looked at the numbers or how much of the electromagnetic spectrum that that would require with current technology, nor have I seen anyone else try to address it. But my feeling is that this is unlikely to work at that scale and would be prohibitively expensive to keep such a large covering of satellites in low earth orbit, aside from other issues like making ground based astronomy impossible and risk of space debris. I think this is the same thing as everything else, of just really trying to low ball and ignore the actual costs and just rely on the idea of "Musk launches a few more satellites and everyone can just get internet everywhere and we don't have to maintain all of this pesky ground based infrastructure like wires and fiber"

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

everyone getting their internet from starlink soon that this is such an extremely bad idea.

Literally dotcom bubble 2.0

Well at least copper and fiber doesn't deorbit and can be used for decades.

[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Honestly, I have not looked too deeply into how SpaceX got all of these waivers. I am guessing there are enough people holding equity in SpaceX with influence that can pull strings to get their exit liquidity. And they can try to justify it to rubes as SpaceX being the super future company that should be treated specially (It bought xAI, and is trying to sell itself as the future of internet through starlink and having control of all space travel when we all start moving to space and Mars bases any day now)

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So it's the funds' managers bankrupting their own funds? Just openly stealing from the company you manage by using all the company funds to buy magic beans from your cousin?

[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

My understanding is that it is the index managers not the fund managers. Indicies started just as nice ways to track the market or sectors in one number (which is why in reporting and checking on the market you will see those numbers quoted). When an index fund decides to track an index and define and market themselves as doing it, the fund is legally obligated to follow the index. Several analysts at the FT has been complaining about how much power this gives the people in charge of the indicies and that most people haven't really caught on to.

Edit: to make it clear guys at something like Standards and Poor (S&P) decide on what to include in the index and the rules around it and then someone at a company like Blackrock or Vanguard markets an index fund that will track that index to investors. So in this hypothetical, it is S&P screwing over Vanguard investors.

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Dunno, idk how the market works

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago

:monke-to-monke-communication:

[–] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

I think there are about to be about a million explainers on every type of media about this stuff. Like in 2020 when everyone learned about supply chains.