This may seem like good advice; but sometimes copies get lost, borrowed by friends, or have coffee spilled on them -- so it is better to buy 3-4 copies just to be safe.

It's actually guy who bought a JPEG for 6 figs explaining why SpaceX is a good investment

There was once a that socialism would work better than capitalism. This was mostly wrong and post-1989 it seemed like we'd agree on market economies plus a welfare state. But an injection of green degrowth has birthed "socialism will wreck the economy — in a good way!"

odd I don’t see any of the “abundance democrats” posting about the combined spaceflight / satellite constellation and telecommunications / AI company today, which is experiencing the largest IPO in human history — I would have thought they’d be excited!

One big challenge with closed primaries in the context of nationalized politics: voters don't have reliable heuristics to make sense of where candidates stand, so they look for whatever signals they can find. Because of Mamdani's incredible visibility -- a real accomplishment that didn't happen by accident -- his endorsement counts for a lot. But what do we actually know about these candidates, especially when you have a ton of elections and most people aren't consuming a ton of substantive news sources (for all sorts of defensible reasons)? In this low-information environment, voters often use demographic cues that draw on stereotypes about sex, age, race, and ethnicity, e.g., we have certain preconceived notions about older white men, younger women with Latin surnames, etc. It is extremely common for voters to use surnames to identify co-ethnic candidates. Among Democratic primary voters, an interesting dynamic has emerged: college-educated white voters tend to prefer ethnic minority candidates over white candidates (all else being equal, this is a way for racially liberal whites to express their political identity); at the same time, ethnic minority candidates often prefer co-ethnic candidates. Under these conditions, the demographic element of candidate selection can count just as much as more conventional qualifications. When I read this reporting from @LevineJonathan, I thought, "wow, ZM is really on one when it comes to selecting unconventional candidates." If we take for granted that he is going to select committed leftists (fair enough, he is a committed leftist), is this candidate really the best-qualified committed leftist for the job? But if you look the candidate selection through the lens of who will activate latent positive stereotypes, attract attention, etc., this makes a lot of sense. Further, if you haven't had a ton of life experience, don't have an independent fundraising base, are explicitly a movement person, you are much more likely to embrace the principle of collective leadership. Under our system, it is a bit unusual to have people who are subject to this kind of collective leadership by a para-party vanguard organization. But here we are.