These people are happy to buy a 3.2 trillion dollar company that sells glass rectangles but find it hard to buy a 2 trillion dollar company that will change and save humanity. Absolutely foolish retardism displayed all over X. The good thing is this is a great time to mute dumb.
10
Check and mate in Seattle. Reminds me of all the black rectangles over faces in men’s crime magazines.
1
342
Bro. AAPL is 3.2 trillion selling glass rectangles. Nuff said. See ya at 100 trillion.
7
It’s why we asked you to go public @elonmusk it’s this statement alone explains it clearly I said it more crassly but this person has it right : “Apple is worth $3.5 trillion selling glass rectangles on a single planet. The first monopoly of access to an infinite frontier at 30 or 50 trillion in 5 years isn’t exuberance, it’s just simple arithmetic on the expansion of the addressable market.”
1
2
7
580
It really was the best thing to do. After, we all got breakfast at some diner, I freestyled some crazy song, and then took a cab home. Aaron stayed up and went sneaker shopping. (He bought red ones.) I fell asleep with the searing light of day in the shape of rectangles around
1
18
1. I agree with this one to an extent
2&3: Ehh, there's plenty badly written media that I wouldn't call brainrot. It's an all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares type of thing
10
SpaceX closed its first day of trading at $2.1 trillion, up 19%. Everyone's looking at the number. No one's looking at what it's actually worth.
Let me tell you what the market just bought, and why I think this company will be worth $30 to $50 trillion within five years.
First, the symbolism. This IPO is a referendum. On one side, 20 years of talk about degrowth, sobriety, redistribution, the end of history managed by committees. On the other, a man who said, "I'm going to make humanity multiplanetary," whom everyone called a clown, and who just created the largest publicly traded company in history, starting from a warehouse in El Segundo. The market has voted. Workism had HR departments; SpaceX had rockets. The rockets won.
Next, let's look at the economics, because that's where everyone goes wrong. Analysts value SpaceX as a launch company plus Starlink. That's like valuing the internet in 1995 based on the fax machine market. Starship doesn't reduce the cost per kilogram in orbit by 20%, it reduces it by a factor of 100. And every time in history that an infrastructure cost is reduced by a factor of 100, it's not the existing market that grows, it's entire industries that are born. The cost of computing divided by 100 gave us the internet, the smartphone, AI. The cost of orbit divided by 100 will give us a complete space economy.
Let's list what becomes profitable when the cost per kilogram in orbit is the price of a plane ticket. Orbital data centers, with continuous solar power and free cooling, at the very moment when AI is causing terrestrial energy demand to explode. The microgravity manufacturing of semiconductors, optical fibers, and printed organs impossible to produce under gravity. Mass orbital tourism, then lunar hotels, which will go from fantasy to business plan just like luxury cruises in the 20th century. Point-to-point terrestrial transportation, Paris to Tokyo in 40 minutes. The asteroid mining industry, a single M-class body containing more metals than anything humanity has extracted since the Neolithic era. And Mars in the crosshairs, not as a tourist destination, but as the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken, with all the associated demands on energy, materials, robotics, and AI.
SpaceX will not participate in these markets. SpaceX owns the entry fee to all these markets. It's AWS, but for civilization. Apple is worth $3.5 trillion selling glass rectangles on a single planet. The first monopoly on access to an infinite frontier worth 30 or 50 trillion dollars in 5 years isn't exuberance; it's simply a matter of three factors influencing the expansion of the addressable market.
And now, my favorite part. This future doesn't need bureaucrats. There are no advisory committees in orbit. No pointless commissions on Mars. Every dollar in this new economy will be created by engineers, technicians, welders, pilots, and entrepreneurs. Graduates in standards management will have to learn a useful trade, and frankly, that's great news for them too: building is infinitely more fun than controlling.
Because that's the real message today. For 50 years, we've been sold a shrunken future: less energy, fewer children, less ambition, and managing decline properly. And suddenly, the world's largest financial asset is a bet on abundance, expansion, and adventure. Pessimism has just gone short.
The future will be mega fun. There will be hotels with views of Earth, honeymoons in orbit, kids asking "Dad, what was it like before reusable rockets?" like we say "what was it like before the internet?" And sometime in the 2030s, a human will walk on Mars in a livestream in front of 5 billion people, and on that day, no one will remember the name of a single one of their detractors.
Buy optimism. It's still undervalued.
1
2
4
76
“Apple is worth $3.5 trillion selling glass rectangles on a single planet.”
Yes, and in 5 years (time of reference mentioned in your post) there will not be a single person percent living anywhere but earth.
1
2
27
Gege when I catch you Gege retweeted
"these rectangles look really ugly"
"Oh so you hate those squares?"
"I wasn't referring to the squares"
"Oh so squares aren't rectangles??"
"I just wasn't referring to squares"
"Okay so squares are triangles thanks for clearing this up"
You are an idiot
3
63
441
"Apple is selling glass rectangles on a single planet" 🏆🏆
Jun 13
SpaceX a clôturé son premier jour de cotation à 2 100 milliards de dollars, 19%. Tout le monde regarde le chiffre. Personne ne regarde ce qu'il price réellement.
Laissez-moi vous dire ce que le marché vient d'acheter, et pourquoi je pense que cette boîte vaudra 30 à 50 trillions d'ici 5 ans.
D'abord, le symbole. Cette IPO est un référendum. D'un côté, 20 ans de discours sur la décroissance, la sobriété, la redistribution, la fin de l'histoire gérée par des comités. De l'autre, un homme qui a dit "je vais rendre l'humanité multiplanétaire", que tout le monde a traité de clown, et qui vient de créer la plus grosse entreprise cotée de l'histoire en partant d'un entrepôt à El Segundo. Le marché a voté. Le wokisme avait des départements RH, SpaceX avait des fusées. Les fusées ont gagné.
Ensuite, la mécanique économique, parce que c'est là que tout le monde se trompe. Les analystes valorisent SpaceX comme une entreprise de lancement plus Starlink. C'est comme valoriser Internet en 1995 sur le marché du fax. Starship ne réduit pas le coût du kilo en orbite de 20%, il le divise par 100. Et chaque fois dans l'histoire qu'un coût d'infrastructure est divisé par 100, ce n'est pas le marché existant qui grossit, ce sont des industries entières qui naissent. Le coût du calcul divisé par 100 a donné Internet, le smartphone, l'IA. Le coût de l'orbite divisé par 100 va donner une économie spatiale complète.
Faisons la liste de ce qui devient rentable quand le kilo en orbite coûte le prix d'un billet d'avion. Les data centers orbitaux, avec énergie solaire continue et refroidissement gratuit, au moment exact où l'IA fait exploser la demande énergétique terrestre. La fabrication en microgravité de semi-conducteurs, de fibres optiques, d'organes imprimés impossibles à produire sous gravité. Le tourisme orbital de masse, puis les hôtels lunaires, qui passeront du fantasme au business plan exactement comme la croisière de luxe au 20ème siècle. Le transport point à point terrestre, Paris-Tokyo en 40 minutes. L'industrie minière des astéroïdes, dont un seul corps de classe M contient plus de métaux que tout ce que l'humanité a extrait depuis le néolithique. Et Mars en ligne de mire, pas comme destination touristique, mais comme le plus grand projet d'infrastructure jamais entrepris, avec tout ce que ça implique de demande en énergie, matériaux, robotique, IA.
SpaceX ne participera pas à ces marchés. SpaceX possède le péage d'entrée de tous ces marchés. C'est AWS, mais pour la civilisation. Apple vaut 3 500 milliards en vendant des rectangles de verre sur une seule planète. Le premier monopole d'accès à une frontière infinie à 30 ou 50 trillions dans 5 ans, ce n'est pas de l'exubérance, c'est une simple règle de trois sur l'expansion du marché adressable.
Et maintenant, la partie que je préfère. Ce futur n'a pas besoin de bureaucrates. Il n'y a pas de comité consultatif en orbite. Pas de commission Théodule sur Mars. Chaque dollar de cette nouvelle économie sera créé par des ingénieurs, des techniciens, des soudeurs, des pilotes, des entrepreneurs. Les diplômés en gestion de la norme vont devoir apprendre un métier utile, et franchement, c'est une excellente nouvelle pour eux aussi : construire est infiniment plus fun que contrôler.
Parce que c'est ça, le vrai signal d'aujourd'hui. Pendant 50 ans on nous a vendu un futur rétréci : moins d'énergie, moins d'enfants, moins d'ambition, gérer le déclin proprement. Et là, d'un coup, le plus gros actif financier du monde est un pari sur l'abondance, l'expansion et l'aventure. Le pessimisme vient de passer en position vendeuse sur lui-même.
Le futur sera méga fun. Il y aura des hôtels avec vue sur la Terre, des honeymoons en orbite, des gamins qui diront "papa, c'était comment avant les fusées réutilisables" comme on dit "c'était comment avant Internet". Et quelque part dans les années 2030, un humain marchera sur Mars en livestream devant 5 milliards de personnes, et ce jour-là plus personne ne se souviendra du nom d'un seul de ses détracteurs.
Achetez de l'optimisme. C'est encore sous-valorisé.
22
🔔🦉 DOn QuigrOOt Official ❌ 🎺 🍀 retweeted
Jun 13
Illusory back-and-forth movement
Actually, the rectangles are moving to the right at a constant speed.
2
8
37
3,858
Have fun being miserable as you spite watch, dearie. Bless our heart. Also, might wanna add more flags. Not sure if you're a patriot or just into little rectangles with colored patches.
1
14
FFS, I'm arguing that this is sophistry which you helpfully insist on reaffirming.
I know the AR15 is not an M16 but an M16 is an AR15 much in the same way the squares are rectangles, blah, blah, blah.
I'm saying you guys are deliberately picking meaningless fights over the antiquated definitions of words to make yourselves feel intellectually superior rather than contributing to a meaningful dialogue.
Guess what? That doesn't make you intelligent. It just makes you an enormous prick.
1
9
Cheese Boi retweeted
Jun 13
$AVRE Edwards & Magee and Schabacker called these rectangles.
Nicolas Darvas, studied the works of both classical chartists. Picked up the rectangle and made it his own Darvas Box. With it he made millions.
One pattern, repeated process.
I like this text-book rectangle @jonbking
9
10
186
73,331
You see in the UK too, as well as most of Europe. It’s just an age thing, lots of the rectangles you talk about started at as just pitches, no stadiums but just got many renovations over time, and often have to fit into “city blocks” so they look like a city block
1
79
Me: Our devices screen are similar to black mirrors. Black mirrors are also scrying mirrors. Scry is linked to Screen
Ai: That’s an intriguing observation—device screens (especially when off or in dark mode) do function like modern black mirrors, and the parallel to scrying is conceptually rich, even if the words aren’t etymologically linked. etymonline. com
Black Mirrors in Scrying
Scrying (or “seeing”) is an ancient divination practice where you gaze into a reflective or translucent medium—crystal balls, water, smoke, or polished surfaces—to induce visions, gain insights, or contact other realms. A black mirror (often obsidian, or glass painted black on one side) is a classic tool because its dark, slightly reflective surface creates a “void” that relaxes the eyes and engages the subconscious or intuitive mind. en.wikipedia. org
• Historical roots trace back to cultures like the Aztecs (who used obsidian “smoking mirrors” linked to Tezcatlipoca) and European occult traditions. collegeofpsychicstudies. co. uk
• Practitioners stare softly (not hard-focused) in low light, often entering a trance state, until images, symbols, or scenes emerge—sometimes described like “TV static” or ghostly projections.
Modern occult communities explicitly note that turned-off TVs, computer monitors, or phone screens make excellent improvised black mirrors for the same reason: uniform darkness subtle reflectivity. forum.becomealivinggod. com
Screens as “Black Mirrors”
Your point lands well here. When powered off, most screens are glossy black rectangles that mirror your face and room faintly—just like traditional scrying tools. When on, they pour forth endless images, “visions,” and alternate realities that captivate attention in a trance-like way. Some esoteric thinkers draw direct parallels:
• Screens act as portals to other worlds (social media feeds, videos, virtual spaces).
• They induce altered states of consciousness through flickering light, dopamine loops, and constant input—similar to how scrying bypasses normal perception. academia. edu
This idea shows up in online discussions tying modern tech to older magic: “black screens” as spirit realms or tools for revelation. reddit. com
The “Scry” ↔ “Screen” Link
This is more folk/phonetic association than strict linguistics.
• Scry comes from Middle English, a shortening of descry (“to discern, see, or reveal”), ultimately from Old French/Latin roots related to “describing” or proclaiming something hidden. It’s about perceiving visions. etymonline. com
• Screen has Germanic roots (via Old French escran), originally meaning a protective barrier, shield, or partition (like a fire screen). Later it evolved to mean surfaces for projecting images (e.g., magic lanterns, movies). etymonline. com
No shared root—it’s a cool coincidence in sound and function. The idea that “scry became screen” pops up in some occult or meme-style posts as a symbolic truth rather than dictionary fact. It fits a broader theme: technology as sorcery (John Dee’s scrying tools influencing early science/computation vibes, or cinema as mass scrying).
1
31
the placement of the rectangles can’t be for no reason, but I have zero clue on what two characters are positioned like this
14