- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Market debut of AI company behind Claude chatbot will be one of largest in US history, a test of its financial viability
Anthropic has publicly filed for a stock market listing, one of the largest debuts in history. The company’s float on the US market is likely to be a high-water mark in the multitrillion-dollar AI boom and a test of its financial viability.
Analysts and investors have valued the San Francisco-based company, founded in 2021, at more than $1.5tn. The company, which will will list under the symbol ANT, confidentially filed with US financial regulators for an initial public offering in June.
Yes but being sad because mercury is in gatorade or whatever isn’t “real”, it’s literally prescribed to you by someone who says that when planets do X then your mood or success in whatever endeavors must be Y and Z
If the only thing you’ve heard about astrology is the “newspaper horoscopes” that attempt to be prescriptive in that way, then I could see having that opinion.
I would also argue that people who read those horoscopes and take them seriously, also do not understand astrology.
My point is that “Mercury in retrograde” is a real phenomenon, unlike “self-regulating market” or “rational/ethical consumer,” or any of the other things economists use to try to justify deregulation, austerity, and “infinite growth.”
My argument isn’t that Mercury retrograde has any effect on your mood. That’s a claim I didn’t make. But from the perspective of earth, there are times when Mercury appears to reverse its course. The other planets do it too. Hence, it is “more real than economics.”
There absolutely are real phenomenon in economics. There are none in astrology that have been proven.
But that’s not astrology. Astrology is the art of giving it mysterious meanings. Mercury being in retrograde is an astronomical phenomenon.
The problem with economics is that it’s essentially sociology and you obviously can’t make absolute laws about things that involve people. But I’ll give you two simple examples that absolutely have been proven time and time again:
Induced demand - if you make something more available (cheaper), that in of itself is usually enough to make demand for it higher.
Inelastic demand - if something is an absolute necessity then it becoming more expensive doesn’t reduce demand to 0 (healthcare, fuel).
#2, incidentally, is one reason why markets will never be truly efficient and need to be regulated. The equilibrium of supply and demand can’t be what determines the price of healthcare, transportation, etc.
Economics blows up when you try to make things absolute rules, or when you try to rationalize markets that have people with tons of money FOMOing bullshit based on marketing. Two problems come to mind:
The P/E ratio of 10 is stated as a rule in investing, but there’s no reason that’s the exact right amount, it’s really just something that on average, people buying stocks find a sensible return rate because similar rates could be achieved elsewhere too.
Conversely to the last point, people marketing IPOs for companies making zero profit will convince you that really horrible P/E is fine because those companies will take over the entire global market for whatever. See, that’d be true IFF there’s a market AND they remain the biggest player. Just because a P/E ratio of 10 being optimal isn’t an absolute law of the universe doesn’t mean a P/E ratio of 1000 is any good.
As stated to you in a other comment. Astrology and celestial navigation are not the same. The only similarities they have is relying on the position of planets and celestial bodies. Astrology is pure pseudoscience.
Seeing as economics is also a pseudoscience, I don’t see how that contradicts my point at all.
I said the movements of the stars and planets as described by astrology is a real phenomenon. Unless you want to dispute that, you’re arguing against a strawman of your own construction.