Bo

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

@kirillk_web3 Nvidia was a private company for 6 years before going public and had a revenue of like 150mm. Ultimately, time will tell. But comparing spacex ipo to Nvidia is does not make sense.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

Not so sure about that. Shelf offerings like this can be accretive. Particularly when the company does not have an immediate need for the capital and can be patient and deploy it over time. With 700mm in cash it seems likely they won’t be in any rush to sell any shares. Gives future optionality. - basically what he says in the interview. Personally, I like it.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

It is a stupid request because of the defense implications of “pausing”. We pause China near certainly won’t even if they say they will. Would it be a good idea to pausing developing atomic weapons when you know other nations are developing them and almost certainly won’t pause even if they say they will?

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

@holly___xxx___ @FT Google and Planet Labs are working on it. With some research, I think you will find it is not a fantasy. Will it happen tomorrow? No (not at scale). Is there a good chance we start seeing meaningful tests of it over the next several years? Seems quite likely.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

I mean… responsible wealth management seems like the obvious answer. Highly concentrated position - even one with great prospects - is bad risk management. Would you have 99% of your wealth in one company (no idea what the percent is here)? If you bought 1mm shares of a stock trading at .01 that went up to 30$ a share and now made up the vast majority of your wealth what would you do?

Even if you thought that company could, and was likely to, go to 100$ a share would it not be prudent to sell a portion and diversify? - go looks at any companies ceo, maybe Nvidia is a good starting place. Is Nvidia a bad investment because Jensen has sold something like 2.9b in shares? It would be a different story if a CEO sold the vast majority of their shares.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

Saying something is farther out is not crapping on it. Discussing the potential limitations of both systems is not craping all over them. Discussing how it will likely be ideal to have gate, annealing, and classical working together seems more like an honest approach. What you are saying does not reflect the facts. It is not a question of perception, but what has in fact been said. Here you go:

https://t.co/Sk0f2qqIt8

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

It is not “this Bill” that is the issue. It is decades of bills. The problem with actually caring about the long-term fate of the country is that it will mean the people voting today will have to “suffer” for the sins of the government they elected. Most folks would rather damn tomorrow so they can live better today. I don't think you are wrong. I also think it is very unlikely to change; it seems to be the fundamental nature of democracy. It can't help but to slowly destroy itself. You either lead a good life off those who suffered before you, do some suffering yourself, or leave the suffering to those who come after (obviously not that simple, but it gets to the point).

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

I believe it was in an interview, I may be confusing it with another paper they responded to. In either case, as I mention, I find the papers interesting, but weight the customer testimonials above them. An academic paper can argue it has no practical benefit, but based on the current information it in fact is providing practical benefit to very large companies.

I am weighting the evidence given my experience with it based on the reasoning I provided. Again, it does not benefit ford or the others, given the nature of where they get the value. No one is buying a car from Ford because their production line is more efficient, they are buying the car because they like the car - at least it would not effect what car I buy or anyone I know. Perhaps you buy a car based on production line efficiency? Perhaps it could reduce the price of the car, making them more competitive, but that is not a person buying the car because it has quantum annealing optimized production lines. That comes across silly to me, given the nature of the benefits.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

Probably because they did respond to it and also that is the nature of academic papers. Having been in that world, people look to write papers on what will get them the most attention because journals like that. Papers are arguments (in a sense). There are multiple sides to all of those. There are things we accept as “truth” in day to day life that have papers written about how they are not true. Look at medical science, papers on AI, and pretty much everything else. There is a “AI can do this and medical science can do that.” - then responses “no it can’t.”

The more attention a topic is getting the more of that there is. There are plenty of papers being released saying AI can’t do what most the majors claim it can. Yet, we push forward on AI. Why? Because folks see it working and use it (though, personally I would be hesitant to call the current state of it AI).

In this case, I see papers, find them interesting, but take them with a grain of salt (on both sides). I see blue chip customers giving numbers on how d wave’s annealing system has added significant value and listen. Those customers have zero benefit in giving testimonials on how d wave’s annealer added significant efficiency gains to their scheduling and production lines or cell tower efficiency - they won’t be getting any additional customers from that, but will save money. That I believe and see as real and tangible benefits.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

Curious, but you don’t trust other peer reviewed papers - only the ones that agree with your narrative? I have not looked at the paper you mention. I do try to keep up with most quantum related papers. Academic papers by their nature are a back and forth. I see value in them but it has limits. Personally, I find that companies discussing the in fact value they have gotten from a service with no benefit to them for it to be vey compelling. There is significant reputational risk if they are not honestly stating the benefit.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

Ah, a study you believe while you deny all the other information. Curious how you cherry pick such things. Something to pay attention to, but it does little in regard to the rest of the information that is very positive for d wave. I don’t see any of d waves blue chip client complaining. I see them giving testimonials to the value add.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

Or it is her own opinion and yours is merely the byproduct of a running afoul short position (among many other possibilities). You have no evidence to support the claim that she is either paid by D wave or that her opinion is not her own. Only what you want to believe based on no evidence. Believe what you have evidence to, not what you can imagine in spite of the evidence - until and only if the information changes, you are making baseless claims denying available information.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

… yes … and I’m sure all the companies they are working with throw money at something that gives them zero value.

Dilution is perfectly fine if the capital is used to increase share holder value. So far, it looks like that is exactly what is happening. Yet, you speculate doomsday by cherry picking information to inform a narrative that denies the current reality. Information can change, but as is you just keep looking more and more the fool. I wonder if this is what those who denied computers could be smaller than a room sounded like. Yelling, “it cannot be.” Maybe it’s not. But I am certainly not willing to disregard available information and rely on speculative narratives.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

@Estella_Bryant_ @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump Fair point.

[Bo @Blorgdorg]

He did not sell close to half his shares and he will certainly be getting more as part of the compensation plan. He still has 2mm shares. If he thought the company was going to tank he would have sold a lot more. When the executives majority compensation is shares they should and deserve to sell some of that. He has done an incredible job. I, personally, am happy for him that he can reap some of that now.