I'm jealous that this does not refer to us: "I met an AI superforecaster startup founder who told me his AI had turned $35 into $2 million on Kalshi over seven months."

I also talked to him and 100% believe he was able to pull this off. And it was on 10,000+ trades so it wasn't luck.

Wow! This comment inspired me to dig deeper.

After 20+ years in the market, today I learned: "The S&P 500 is a float-adjusted, market-capitalization-weighted index."

So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny.

Or, is there a nuance that I'm missing?

>So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny.

Nasdaq already caved. FTSE and S&P are supposedly considering it.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers...

The SpaceX float is small in proportion to a ridonculous valuation.

Low float, large cap companies will get a 5x multiplier.

Grok: lots of competitors & my 4th choice in LLM models.

Starship: zero competitors & potentially makes humans inter-planetary.

Seems crazy if investors put more value on Grok.

“potentially makes humans inter-planetary”

What is the realistic, non-science fiction appeal of this?

I would wager minerals mining and tourism are probably the only meaningful revenue sources in our lifetimes.

Tourism to Mars and back (this is the easiest interplanetary travel) means years confined in a space rocket just to circle around Mars and get back (it is not possible to land on Mars and get back). Not that appealing…

I know the GP mentioned making humans interplanetary, but I mostly just interpreted this as “more spacefaring”. By tourism I really just meant something along the lines of orbiting hotels.

Don’t worry man, the LLM’s will invent FTL travel before 2030. Trust me.

Going to orbit is actually useful already, cf starlink

Yeah, I meant in addition to what we’re already doing.

I do think that will reach diminishing returns at some point. Kessler syndrome is a real thing for long-term higher orbits.

These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue.

Humans being interplanetary would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn’t much revenue there.

These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue.

European settlers being on the north american continent would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn't much revenue there.

Jamestown was a failure.

The Pilgrims starved their first year.

Okay? The US is the largest country market in the world.

I'm not sure that the continental Colonies brought in much revenue, though. The individual colonists could do quite well, but viewed as an financial investment for the British Crown (which they were not, but that's the OP's analogy) I don't think they were very good. Plus, when they wanted to extract revenue via taxes, the Colonies revolted. Eight years of war probably cost a pretty penny, too.

(Sourcing my claim is difficult. I include this reference [1], which says that the Caribbean colonies were more profitable than all the continental colonies together. It doesn't comment on the cost of the war.)

[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1ay/chapter/...

America became a success much later.

I think you are in agreement. The poster you replied to seem to insinuate that immediate revenue (in the Americas/space) isn't the best indicator of latter successful pioneering markets.

I've seen something similar with forecasting.

I can get more accurate forecasts by having distinct agents do different research tasks, summarize, and then feed those summaries to an agent that uses judgment to forecast.

I think it is all about managing context.

Is there any lesson here for non-devs (like me) who are using CC to write some pretty long, gnarly notebooks. The problem I have recently run into is that CC vibe codes really long code with lots of checks. But, then when I want to modify it, CC has more code to read and it gets overwhelmed. If it didn't include as many checks to begin with, it would be easier to understand what is going on.

Any advice? Have you seen this with code in production?

I mean, have you tried to ask it not to do those checks? It's similar to the OP about no defensive coding. In general, CC works better when you can tell it WHAT TO DO as opposed what NOT to do, but sometimes there is no way around it. What kind of checks it's adding? Like asserting that columns exist and stuff?