|
Cheesemaster200 posted:If crypto crashes it has absolutely zero effect on anything else. Recessions are caused by cascading effects. For example, interest rates rise, businesses can't raise capital, and then lay off workers, etc. If Bitcoin crashes, some smug 22 year old in his parent's basement may lose his life savings that he previously didn't have anyway, but it is going to have little economic effect. Markets/people are dumb and irrational. Which is why I've gotten into the habit of doing the opposite of what everyone else seems to be doing. With that said, I'm with Buffet when he says that he won't invest in the cryptocurrencies. I'll get off of my soapbox, now. melon cat fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jan 11, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
GE 50 shares @ 19.22 ~ $961. It's massively undervalued. It's trading at 4/3 revenue. They're going to say "blockchain" sometime in the next 6 weeks and everyone is going to wake up and realize they're still GE and it's going to pop to 32, which is where we're getting out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Rocks posted:what's the difference between MSCI, EAFE and EM MSCI are the ones running the funds. EAFE is "Europe, Asia, Far East" and EM is "Emerging Markets". And yeah, I assume Bitcoin will continue to be random redistribution of wealth between people based on when they heard about it from some friend, who forgot their password, and who picked an exchange that actually manages to cash you out.... but like others have said, panics can start with anything. jmzero fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:GE 50 shares @ 19.22 ~ $961. I'm on board with this. I think it's a smart play, and frankly I'm surprised how beat up they've been. Especially just for the fact it's $GE. Solid company, I think it's a good swing play if anything else. $GOON 75 Shares of $USO. (~$1,000) With all of the OPEC discussions to maintain their lower production, and the opening of the ANWR, and potentially off shore drilling, I see potential to get back to $15+ by summer. As long as Crude keeps above $60, it should see sustained growth. I'll wait for some others to agree before pulling the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
jvick posted:I'm on board with this. I think it's a smart play, and frankly I'm surprised how beat up they've been. Especially just for the fact it's $GE. Solid company, I think it's a good swing play if anything else. CRUDE GOIN TO $75 BY 7/1/18 BABY!!! RIDE THAT BEAUTIFUL BLACK ROCKET TO THE MOON.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Markets/people are dumb and irrational. Which is why I've gotten into the habit of doing the opposite of what everyone else seems to be doing. With that said, I'm with Buffet when he says that he won't invest in the cryptocurrencies. He's right until people decide to take out mortgages denominated in bitcoin. Idk when that will happen
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
VOW 3 shares @ 177.80 $532.40 I like the auto play, honestly, I think autonomous driving is coming sooner than anticipated but it's still going to require a platform, and who better than a firm with boucoup China exposure (the best China exposure among major auto mfrs. - with nearly 75% of urban Chinese becoming middle class and DEMANDING cars) I think they are prime position to bounce back from the scandal. Obviously my investment ethos is mostly buying blue chips with black eyes but I think this play makes a lot of sense, unfortunately they were cheaper a quarter ago but I think 250 is a much more reasonable valuation for this company on a foreward looking perspective even though the auto business as a whole is unglamorous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It occurred to me that makers of winter apparel and winter sports gear probably sell a lot more products as soon as the winter olympics are on TV. People are reminded by all the winter sports that they aspire to do winter sports, and aspirational sportspeople love to load up on gear and plan exactly one winter trip before stuffing their closets and garages with used-once gear they never touch again. This seems like it should generate a short-term bump in profits for companies that make winter sports gear for sale in the Northern hemisphere in february-March 2018. interesting theory. FYI for Canada, Hudsons Bay makes all of Team Canadas lovely outfits. Stock is $HBC.TO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:VOW 3 shares @ 177.80 $532.40 this is why i've put money into $BB... yes blackberry... but they're hard on autonomous driving stuff too, even signed a deal with Baidu recently to get into CHYNA!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
I actually really like UA as a pick right now. It's a little too aggressive for my taste (i.e. I wouldn't hold it personally) but they have a fat pipe, good distribution, they make some decent product but are perceived to be a pretty poo poo brand (at this point). Athletic wear is really incredibly brand focused, I don't know that there's a ton of quality difference I can just tell you I'm sitting here wearing Nike and Lulu but could just as easily be wearing UA and New Balance. It would feel exactly the same. To be very profitable they just need to get their loving marketing sorted, which I think they can do, especially since they tend to have a much stronger association about being American (still the most lucrative market) than do other mfrs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Rocks posted:interesting theory. FYI for Canada, Hudsons Bay makes all of Team Canadas lovely outfits. Stock is $HBC.TO. Cool, adding this to the list. I figure I'll take all the tickers, do some quick looks at fundamentals and trends, and try to pick from one to five tickers that seem promising. I'll report back to the thread. Fully autonomous, free-ranging go-anywhere driving is a decade+ away at least, if it's going to happen at all. It's also the pie-in-the-sky red herring. Driver assist is a commercially viable product today, and it's going to continue to get iteratively better. The companies that can profit on it will be car manufacturers selling premium cars where customers will either buy a high-end model that comes with it, or take it as an option on a medium-range model. The vendors that successfully market their tech to major automakers will also have profitable potential. Avoid poo poo like Uber's bet entirely. Don't go for promises of driverless vehicles. 99%-working driverless autonomy is completely useless, and the last 1% is fantastically difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
HBC is less a play on athletic wear and more on their unrealized billions in real estate they hold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:VOW 3 shares @ 177.80 $532.40 MW only offers us: VLKAF at $216 VLKAY at $43 VLKPF at $214 VLKPY at $43
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I actually really like UA as a pick right now. It's a little too aggressive for my taste (i.e. I wouldn't hold it personally) but they have a fat pipe, good distribution, they make some decent product but are perceived to be a pretty poo poo brand (at this point). My quick survey of these brands and their websites suggests to me that a lot of the premium products are being marketed on a couple of bases: first, handmade/made with love/green/all-women company/bespoke kind of feel, where you're supposed to have feelgoods about who made the stuff: second, super mega performance technology (often from a nordic company) where you're supposed to believe that your $300 ski goggles will be better in various handwavey ways than a similar $150 pair of ski goggles. And maybe third, buy poo poo from nordic countries or Canada because obviously they know about snow and cold weather. A couple of American brands go out of their way to say how they were founded in Aspen, or the Sierras, or in the Cascade mountains, etc. Anything to encourage customers to think that they're buying a product from wise and seasoned experts in being too cold and performing to the maxxx in your icey adventures. I've done enough gear whoring myself to know that people eat this poo poo up. On the other hand, it's obviously a highly competitive field. So my investment thesis right now is not to pick a winner from among the horde, but rather that a rising Winter Olympics-driven tide should mean good revenues for everyone, so just pick one or a few well-priced, well-managed companies and buy with the aim to sell after the next quarterly results are reported.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Rocks posted:this is why i've put money into $BB... yes blackberry... but they're hard on autonomous driving stuff too, even signed a deal with Baidu recently to get into CHYNA! I really disagree with this play. I think you're going to win in one of two ways: tech or manufacturing. Together VW and Audi hold 900 patents for autonomous driving, which is the most of any actual car manufacturer (by about 500 more than Ford). Toyota, BMW, GM, Daimler all have < 400 patents on this stuff. The biggest PLATFORM patent lead is held by Bosch, again selling the vehicle component guts to manufacturers (really other than VW/Audi). Conti (Continental) and Lear have the same business model. But Bosch has the clear lead among the platform/component companies (they've got 900 patents). The most patents when it comes to actual SOFTWARE is held by Google. So unless you make ACTUAL CAR PARTS or ACTUAL CARS, you're chasing Google when it comes to software patents. I just don't see BB being the tech company that bests Google on this thing. Uber, Apple, NVidia, IBM are all in this space. The BB play is just hype from the board because they're a failed consumer device company who's cash rich enough from patents and has enough engineering brainpower that they have to appear to be working on SOMETHING but I can't really believe they have gently caress all tech supremacy when it comes to this stuff (especially given the lead they've spotted to the other, bigger, better, richer firms in the race). EAT FASTER!!!!!! fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Cool, adding this to the list. i think they will be deployed in limited areas (see yesterday's news of some startup having driverless in a senior citizens resort in Florida). Areas like small, warm, flat, dry cities, may be OK (say Phoenix, Austin), but once you get North enough where there's heavy winters I think it's basically forget it... just my opinion though
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I really disagree with this play. I think you're going to win in one of two ways: tech or manufacturing. Together VW and Audi hold 900 patents for autonomous driving, which is the most of any actual car manufacturer (by about 500 more than Ford). Toyota, BMW, GM, Daimler all have < 400 patents on this stuff. The biggest PLATFORM patent lead is held by Bosch, again selling the vehicle component guts to manufacturers (really other than VW/Audi). Conti (Continental) and Lear have the same business model. But Bosch has the clear lead among the platform/component companies (they've got 900 patents). The most patents when it comes to actual SOFTWARE is held by Google. So unless you make ACTUAL CAR PARTS or ACTUAL CARS, you're chasing Google when it comes to software patents. honestly you're probably right
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Does anyone like the idea of buying $INTC while they’re getting poo poo on. Still a long term viable business , just bad press cycle right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Rocks posted:i think they will be deployed in limited areas (see yesterday's news of some startup having driverless in a senior citizens resort in Florida). Areas like small, warm, flat, dry cities, may be OK (say Phoenix, Austin), but once you get North enough where there's heavy winters I think it's basically forget it... just my opinion though The issue is this: the default thing for a driverless car to do when it encounters a situation it doesn't instantly know how to deal with, is to stop. This is obvious and unavoidable. But stopping is bad; it's bad for the user experience, and it's super bad for the traffic. Put one driverless car in any downtown, even in good weather on clean streets in a town where there are no hidden potholes or misaligned street signs, and it'll be a mere nuisance as it chugs around occasionally jolting to a halt when a pedestrian steps quickly towards a curb as though they were about to jump in front of the car (but then don't), or when a pigeon suddenly swoops too near the front of the car, or when someone one lane over suddenly swerves just a little too close to your own lane. But put 100 such cars on the same streets at the same time and you're totally hosed. You are going to utterly turbofuck downtown traffic as all those cars jolt to a halt, you'll get cascading failures, you'll get angry drivers and annoyed pedestrians deliberately cutting them off, or stepping in front of them knowing they will yield to a pedestrian, etc. The situation gets exponentially worse as you add multiple manufacturers with different algorithms. And the places where companies like Uber hope to deploy lots of autonomous cars are exactly the places where this effect will be most pronounced: downtown high-traffic zones during peak commute times. Secondarily, we have not yet seen the rate of automated vehicle-caused deaths reach a point where there will be calls for a legislative response, but it's coming. The carmakers and software makers will vigorously point out that the accident and death rates are far lower with automated vehicles than with human-driven ones; and this will not matter at all to the families of the victims, or the breathless reporters reporting on those specific incidents. There will be regulation, and we have no idea yet what that regulation will look like... will it be at the local or state level, with a national mishmash of incompatible laws? Like I said: full, driverless autonomy is a long way away. Tesla's approach makes more sense: provide driver assistance, provide a hands-off-the-wheel mode, gather gobs of data, incrementally make the autopilot better and better. But still have a driver there to be able to immediately deal with any driving situation that the computer can't immediately cope with, and critically, still be the legally responsible party when someone gets hurt or killed. As long as the manufacturer can give themselves the cover of a driver who is told that they have to pay attention and be the one responsible, they have much less exposure to potentially onerous regulation. My opinion on this is not random. I've got a friend working at a startup focused on the automation space, and when I've discussed this with him, he agrees with me that we're 10+ years away from full autonomy. Bare minimum. He pointed out a lot of the above issues to me. And that's not even getting into the stuff you mentioned, like performance in bad weather; or poo poo like inaccurate GPS maps, roadworks, security and vulnerability to intentional mischief, or - and this is a big one - ROI. We have no proof yet that customers will be willing to pay enough for full autonomy for it to be a cost-effective product. That's simply presumed by the entire industry. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:stepping in front of them knowing they will yield to a pedestrian, etc. I actually kind of like the premise that pedestrians getting run over by angry drivers every now and then is a net benefit to a city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Rocks posted:Does anyone like the idea of buying $INTC while they’re getting poo poo on. Still a long term viable business , just bad press cycle right now. The negative news cycle isn't going anywhere, the roll outs are going to take a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Droo posted:I actually kind of like the premise that pedestrians getting run over by angry drivers every now and then is a net benefit to a city. Well, or at the very least, jaywalkers having a few close calls that discourages jaywalking. But you won't even have to actually step in front of the moving automated car: just move as though you're about to, and the software will anticipate based on you rmovement and be forced to do something to avoid a situation where it will no longer have the stopping distance or maneuvering room to avoid hitting you. Basically you can "fake out" an automated car and there isn't anything the programmers can do about it unless they're willing to write software that intentionally fails to avoid hitting people under certain circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Rocks posted:Does anyone like the idea of buying $INTC while they’re getting poo poo on. Still a long term viable business , just bad press cycle right now. INTC has hardly taken a hit from the bad press. It's flat since a month ago before the security flaw news broke, and still up 10% in the past 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I really disagree with this play. I think you're going to win in one of two ways: tech or manufacturing. Together VW and Audi hold 900 patents for autonomous driving, which is the most of any actual car manufacturer (by about 500 more than Ford). Toyota, BMW, GM, Daimler all have < 400 patents on this stuff. The biggest PLATFORM patent lead is held by Bosch, again selling the vehicle component guts to manufacturers (really other than VW/Audi). Conti (Continental) and Lear have the same business model. But Bosch has the clear lead among the platform/component companies (they've got 900 patents). The most patents when it comes to actual SOFTWARE is held by Google. So unless you make ACTUAL CAR PARTS or ACTUAL CARS, you're chasing Google when it comes to software patents. You've clearly researched this, where does Schaeffler stack up in the patent race?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:long $TQQQ, full year Short price would've been $9.30 from this post 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:GE 50 shares @ 19.22 ~ $961. I like this. I am a huge proponent of longing blue chips amidst this 'disrupt everything' boom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But put 100 such cars on the same streets at the same time and you're totally hosed. Well... until you get to a high enough percentage of automated vehicles, at which point it gets much better. Human drivers have some talents that are difficult for computers to replicate, but they also have flaws, inconsistencies, varying experience levels, and are very bad at communicating situational information and learning from each other. Humans are terrible at driving, in an absolute sense. And if you can get down to "no human drivers" in an area, then pretty much all traffic problems are gone. Cars and horses coexisted on roads at one point, and it was awkward but people muddled through - and eventually automation is going to win here. quote:Secondarily, we have not yet seen the rate of automated vehicle-caused deaths reach a point where there will be calls for a legislative response, but it's coming. The carmakers and software makers will vigorously point out that the accident and death rates are far lower with automated vehicles than with human-driven ones; and this will not matter at all to the families of the victims, or the breathless reporters reporting on those specific incidents. There will be regulation, and we have no idea yet what that regulation will look like... will it be at the local or state level, with a national mishmash of incompatible laws? I think this could play out very differently depending on the dumb luck of how the first rollouts go, what are the first big incidents, and which way politicians figure the wind is blowing. The companies involved will certainly have their full PR and lobbying muscles ready, and will try to get a favorable legislative landscape in place before they're forced into something. I think the worst case is you get a company like Tesla who jumps the gun (to an extent, they already have), releases stuff before its ready, and poisons the well for a decade. But yeah, nothing you're saying here is in any way a mystery to the companies involved - these are the first thoughts everyone should have when they consider the technology. But I think you're also putting really arbitrary weights on problems that are very difficult to estimate. How big of a problem is "bad weather" or varying traction on snow? I understand it needs a solution, but it's also exactly the kind of problem modern AIs are good at solving. Other problems you mention aren't changing. People are skittish and make decisions based on emotion rather than by looking at statistics, so will we just never get automated driving? Is liability law going to change in a decade? We don't have a good precedent for how this might go, but there's too much value here for this to stay on the sidelines forever. I think all of these scenarios are possible: 1. We get a release soon (in the next 5-6 years) that's not perfect, but people accept it as a new thing because they generally work better than people 2. We get a release soon (in the next 5-6 years) and it's way, way better than people expect - clearly outperforming humans, and creating pressure to ban human drivers 3. The technology floats on the edge of ready for the next 30 years - and becomes sort of a "flying car", "permanently 10 years away" thing 4. We have a new technology (like, uh, flying cars) or cultural shifts that makes the idea irrelevant 5. It incrementally improves for 15 years, and while it's still not perfect, it passes some arbitrary threshold and now is good enough I wouldn't bet on any of these. It's not like there's a list of these problems and we can add them up like "ooh, 1.5 years for snow, 1 more for 'people trying to prank them at crosswalks'" On a technical side, as a programmer who has done some work with AI, all I can say is that it's hard to predict. A few years ago I would have said "at least 20 years, but even that assumes some breakthrough" - now I don't know. Part of what has changed is that Google has demonstrated a new level of mastery of AI. I've been generally underwhelmed by AI progress over the years. For example, I was surprised at how badly Watson performed - it was the kind of slow incremental step up that we've had for a long time, and I was surprised at IBM for hyping it and at how much people were impressed. Google's recent accomplishments feel very different than that - they feel "snowball-y", and different enough that it's hard to guess what they're already capable of. If I was betting on a self driving play (I'm not), it would focus on them. I don't think Nvidia or (lol) RIM are going to get there. In the end I don't think this is like a cell phone or space shuttle where lots of people can make one, but this one is 10% nicer or cheaper. I think we'll see HUGE differences in performance from the different players, and one will win. In terms of value, I don't see any reason the car hardware should cost more than a couple thousand. Naturally if it doesn't work well or reliably, then it'll be worth almost nothing (ie. if you use it as a novelty to help you parallel park or stay in lane while you take your coat off). But if the technology works reasonably, it's hard to imagine it wouldn't sell through well - it's a classic example of something that's expensive to develop, but has low marginal cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Feel free to run some other time periods: https://dqydj.com/shiller-pe-cape-ratio-calculator/ Oh that’s cool, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
I see 3-4 Waymo cars driving around in morning traffic on my way to work every single day  Also, https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCP1rvCYiruh4SDHyPqcxlJw
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
$GOON MIND 200 shares @ $3.81 I've thought about going in for awhile personally and haven't yet. I'd really wait for a dip because it's bumping up against resistance and it's lightly traded enough that there should be an entry point around $3.60 at some point but the thesis still holds and I'm ok making a small speculative bet with GOON money. It's a long oil play. They do geologic research primarily for offshore oil drillers. If you think oil's going to take off (I do) it's got a lot of upside potential
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Well... until you get to a high enough percentage of automated vehicles, at which point it gets much better. Human drivers have some talents that are difficult for computers to replicate, but they also have flaws, inconsistencies, varying experience levels, and are very bad at communicating situational information and learning from each other. Humans are terrible at driving, in an absolute sense. And if you can get down to "no human drivers" in an area, then pretty much all traffic problems are gone. Cars and horses coexisted on roads at one point, and it was awkward but people muddled through - and eventually automation is going to win here. This is a good post, and I don't take strong issue with any of it. I generally try to counter what I see as extremely unrealistic exuberance, partially fueled by press statements from Uber et. al. on how close we are to fully automated driving. From an investor's perspective the key thing is what you point out: that there's a lot of uncertainty and it's way too early to identify winners or losers, or to identify a date by which there will be clear winners. For more specific stuff: yeah dealing with inclement weather itself is fine, radar makes driving in fog much easier for a computer than for a human, for example. But there are secondary effects: places that plow and heavily salt their icy roads are more likely to have heaps of poo poo on the curb blocking road signs, hidden pot holes covered by a thin layer of ice making them invisible to radar, etc. My expectation is that in terms of passenger safety, automated cars will be far safer at navigating those hazards: but in terms of trip comfort and efficiency, they'll still be marginally worse (that is, they'll go slower and stop more frequently than passengers like). I think a lot of the problems that will and are being encountered are not specifically AI problems. They're cases where we have to make some kind of consistent logic, and it's not clear what the "correct" decision should be. The biggest case is the tension between being safe (defaulting to going slower/stopping/pulling over/taking a detour) vs. giving passengers what they'll perceive to be a quick and efficient trip (going faster, taking a direct route, swerving to avoid an obstacle rather than slowing down or stopping for it, etc.). Some of the decisions to be made will come down to ethics; the old trolley problem is the classic example, but people will focus on for example "hit the pedestrian with the baby for sure, or take a small chance of hitting the bus full of 100 passengers" type questions. I suspect ultimately we'll need regulatory answers to those questions, because insurers and manufacturers are not going to want to make them unilaterally if they can avoid it. So I forsee the regulatory environment being not only reactive to the mistakes of manufacturers, but also proactively sought by those same manufacturers seeking guidance to try to avoid some huge liability issue up-front. e. Maybe we'll also see attempts at legislating automated-car-friendly traffic laws, like making it illegal to intentionally disrupt automated cars by exploiting their object-avoidence algorithms, for example? Try to get cities to crack down on generally-ignored poo poo like jaywalking? I dunno. Trash Trick posted:I see 3-4 Waymo cars driving around in morning traffic on my way to work every single day All of these deployments are done in fairly controlled conditions (known, pre-mapped routes, for example), and what I've read of them so far is that the rider experience remains a low-speed, frequent-stop type thing. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4136600-new-data-hints-weakness-waymos-approach-self-driving Waymo is not at a point yet where an investor should trust that their technology is "ready" or to estimate exactly when it will be "ready" to emerge from testing and become a consumer product. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Is there a play on Synaptics to be had (SYNA)? PROS: They had some tech at CES to have a fingerprint reader underneath a phone screen, as well as have deals with Microsoft and Harmon/Kardon on voice tech. Stock is almost at its 52 week low. CONS: Earnings are down QoQ. PE is 82 (seems crazy high) I would say no deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
http://fortune.com/2017/11/30/gm-autonomous-ride-share-2019/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSRPmng1cmA We shall see!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Yeah that's pretty interesting. Obviously, constraining the service to only within an inner city, and not selling the cars to the general public, reduces the risk considerably. But even then I'll be shocked if they can get even this limited service up and running successfully by 2019.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
More so than pedestrians, think about other car companies "accidentally" exploiting each others algos to get ahead in traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
baquerd posted:More so than pedestrians, think about other car companies "accidentally" exploiting each others algos to get ahead in traffic. This is why the governments of the world are going to mandate one driverless system be used at all times and declare the NVDA/VW combination the new gold standard. NVDA will spike to $100,000/share and I will retire to a quiet life of mystery novels and solid gold cars ramming each other in my own personal demolition derbies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Short price would've been $9.30 from this post This is bananas. They had 200M greater volume week than any week since. That is something like 10000%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Kodak has no buyers left, just bag holders. Gonna drop to mid 7s tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Tokyo Sex Whale posted:$GOON Why do you think it's going to take off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Short price would've been $9.30 from this post Sorry man, I like to give people a little bit of time to discuss. Do you still want to make the move? How much do you think? Tokyo Sex Whale posted:$GOON It's been added to the watch list. jvick fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jan 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 05:55
|
|