Please provide some support that the rule changes were proposed from within. Given the fact they tried pulling this nonsense on 3 indices, it seems very unlikely the rules changes originated from within.

If I were the DJI I would have proposed the change, simply so that we could get some outrage flowing and shut it down.

Without the proposal, you'd have outrage out the other side that it wasn't included (especially if it shoots off like, well, a rocket).

But why? Won't that just make it far more awkward when they're inevitably forced to go through with very similar changes in the end?

Because now they can say "we considered it, there was strong opposition, and we didn't change the rules and what happened happened".

And if they miss out on part of a runup, and the companies later enter the index, what is the long term "harm" if any??

But if they're "right" it makes the competing indices look weak.

Quatsch. The indices will say whatever benefits their power the most, regardless of truth. The fact that they are bending now to pressure is proof enough for me.

We live in an age proving that valuation is just a manipulation.

This whole story is just like the BaM situation: the people with more money feel emboldened to pull every dastardly trick they can to tilt the table towards their pockets, away from the honest participants. SpaceX and the AI IPOs are just the latest and most grand scheme. I’m guessing you were surprised by the collapse of lehman brothers back in the day.

So you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine.

I don’t think you have either?

It’s and interesting point. I’ve done a bit of searching and am also empty handed.

>I don’t think you have either?

I don't know how I could? The indices have already provided their reasoning for these rule changes, but that's just summarily rejected by the conspiracy-minded.

To laymen this appears to be a grand conspiracy. Rules are being changed to accommodate big companies, that's usually bad.

To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli. The indices exist to reflect the market, these IPOs are going to be big enough that the 90s-era rules will/would result in untenable divergence.

the explanation what i heard from some financial analytics is that small float with large valuation would create a dog pile/short squeeze type situation among the funds trying to reflect the SpaceX valuation vs. the whole index valuation - 1.8T vs 70T ratio would be 50B of float vs. 2T where is total of index funds is much larger than 2T, and that is even without accounting for retail investors and other, non-index funds, who will buy a part of float too thus reducing further the float available to the index funds. Such squeeze situation would lead to stock price rise leading to valuation rise, ....

>To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli.

of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.

>to reflect the market

the described above squeeze is hardly a way to reflect the market

>of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.

Are you planning to substantiate this conspiracy theory in any way?

Where do you see a conspiracy theory? I've shown the numbers, it is simple arithmetics.

The situation is similar with mortgage CDS back then - no conspiracy theory/whatever, they just found a way to make AAA bonds out of junk. It was a simple arithmetics too. Everybody knew the arithmetics and was doing it.

Now is the same - they talked about that expected float/valuation squeeze even on NPR - this is where i heard it, i'm not that into finance markets to come up with it myself :)

> Where do you see a conspiracy theory?

You are presenting a theory that an unidentified group of people is engaged in a conspiracy to change the rules of the major indices for corrupt reasons.

That's a conspiracy theory. It might be true, but so far nobody can come up with any evidence in support of it.

The simplest possible explanation is that the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs.

The simplest possible explanation is basic statistics so the top 20% of those bonds supposed to fit AAA criteria. No conspiracy. No "unidentified group of people". No corrupt reasons, just legitimate profit seeking and extraction.

It just naturally happens that that legitimate profit seeking and extractions benefits from the actions like "the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs", and i described the natural simple arithmetics how it happens. No conspiracy. Just arithmetics. You can verify it.

> of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money

You claim this to have been engineered somehow

Ok, use another word. "Came up with". Or whatever process was used which resulted in the new rule of inclusion of those IPOs into the indexes.

> It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market.

Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.

Mēh! The passive indexes (biased to a momentum strategy, so not really passive - they are too big) may have had their day. The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules was clearly an attempt to game them, and even with out the rule change they will squeeze themselves through the rule gate with financial engineering

This will always be the trend in finance, the powerful manipulate the system to their benefit, the rest of us do what we can to survive....

>Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.

The whole point of these indices is to represent the market, the rules are unsustainable if they cause too big of a divergence from that goal.

> The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules

Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption? Is it because this conspiracy also includes all of the news media?

Yep, almost all of my comments questioning this conspiracy theory have been flagged, with many being set [dead] by them moderators.

> Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption?

They are

Why is nobody able to link this reporting? Google doesn't find it either.

> It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say

No it isn’t. They put rules out for consultation and declined adopting them. Nobody was responding to political anything. If management had a say, they would have probably pushed to adopt the changes.

Then a bunch of influencers turned the whole thing into a conspiracy theory and a shocking number of smart people bought the pitch and churned their retirement accounts.

You use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection?

Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?

Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?

Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives.

Of course; to you and me they are human. To their bosses, they are chattel. We’re getting to that attitude even in america by my ken

Look into Mick West; He cover's the common hoaxes really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

quatsch trying to distract us from the epstein files.

No, i wouldn't be surprised how ignorant, selfish and deceitful other Americans are, you included. Mainstream isn't the same as right.

Dude like this asshole would be fine with us keeping drinking fountains and lunch counters segregated, because thats how we've always done things.

Remember folks, there’s no such thing as “too much perspective” and when you get it wrong you look like this silver -haired, privileged , rich as fuck bigot.

The personal insults really lend credibility to your argument.

Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps you want to spew some more bullshit about postmodern neomarxism like a good little JP acolyte, eh? Such a free thinker /s

That reminds me:

I got cajoled the other day that I need to upload my ID and ask for 5.5-Cyber access by the Codex desktop app while I was having it develop a fuzzing suite for an open source library I'm(we?) are developing. I was able to berate it into getting back to work.

This struck me as a point of emergent enshittification; an anus if you will.

The company doing the actual ID verification (KYC) is probably the last company I'd trust with this kind of data.

To circumvent conversations being flagged as "cybersecurity bad!!!" I often have to use previous models (5.3 for example, and sometimes using them through subagents is enough). And when this method no longer works, local models will be good enough for it to not be a problem (for my use case, at least).

Prusa sat on its haunches for a decade, happy to leave progress on the table as long as their salaries got paid. Bambu actually got non-technical people into the hobby and has always had more bang per buck.

Buy a bambu; use Orcaslicer

Edit: didn't mean to say "held the industry back"; I would categorize my opinion more along the lines of "were happy to get fat on past offerings" or the like.

Prusa is generally like Apple in that regard, in that they wait for the new technology to be tried and true before committing their design(s) to it. CoreXY is the most prominent example.

Prusa was actually the "non-technical" printer company for quite a while though. They would sell to schools and libraries, and still do, and offer(ed) assembled kits.

I don't own a Prusa, I've assembled Vorons and have a highly-modified Ender 3 S1, but if I was in the market to get a user-friendly printer, or recommend one, I'd get a Prusa.

My thing with bambu was always that they polished whatever the industry (and hobbyists) had invented and closed it all off, then also innovating on top of that but never giving back unless they _had_ to. Polish and mechanical design are great but corexy kinematics, input-shaping are imo what made the X1 stand out as the fast+good-qual printer when it launched. A lot of what they added on top was then to build a moat.

This may be a controversial take, but imo it would be Bambu to set the industry back by a decade if they "win" and lock up the market. That's clearly their strategy afaict.

Does anyone remember Bambu patenting existing open inventions as their own? I can't seem to find good links anymore (?!) but there's some details here https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5134/8/6/141

If no one else is willing to give a polished experience, they have no one to blame but themselves. My father doesn't want to be a 3d printer expert or filament researcher; he wants to print things in 3d as a hobby. Looking back at the reprap, ultimaker, and prusa — the big boys of the maker-oriented printers that i remember — none of them made any progress on making the hobby more accessible to someone like my dad. Bambu deserves some recognition for that.

I never had any problem with prusa default filament settings and printing is easy with prusalink or usb stick.

Prusa is also pursuing patents (they say it's because of Bambu but lol), and they are not releasing their firmware sources for recent printers.

Bambu did not close the tech they used to make their printers. Others (including Prusa) are making CoreXY and they 100% also benefit from the RnD that Bambu did (either hardware, or the slicer (without which Orca would not exist in its current form)).

Bambu just made better products for cheaper and Josef got mad. But I'm certain that Prusa could compete had they focused on making price-competitive polished printers, and not focus on $5k monster printers for enterprise.

How did Prusa hold the industry back? Were they suing other printer manufacturers who innovated?

"Not innovating myself" isn't the same as "holding other's innovations back".

I didn’t say Prusa held the industry back; I said they sat on their haunches. Even the basic differences in stepper motors between what bambu chose and what prusa or ultimaker chose demonstrates my point.

Edit: whoops! guess i did say they held the industry back... my bad /facepalm.

I did quick search and bambu p2s seems to be 30% faster than prusa mk4s and few hundred cheaper. Prusa is more accurate, more open and has better spare parts supply. Bambu doesn't have wifi connection unless I use their cloud?

I'm gonna keep using mk4s.

I’ve always got more consistent and accurate prints out of my x1c versus the prusa mk3 i tolerated. Even just the enclosure makes the bambu experience more much more consistent in my experience

The enclosure is the real added value, hardware-wise; and the H2D has even better environmental control (active heating and cooling of chamber).

While the open-source part of me loves the more open nature of Prusa, the commercial-minded part loves the immediate convenience of the Bambu. But the environmental control is something which Prusa doesn't really do well yet. Heated chamber, as well as filament humidity control is something Bambu has done which Prusa has not, and when it comes to printing with "engineering" filaments like PA6CF, PA6GF and other higher-end lubricating plastics for bearings etc, along with support filaments like PVA which are incredibly hygroscopic, the Bambu is the only contender if you want high-quality prints that don't warp.

IMO this is where Prusa gave up the race and need to catch up. Give me equivalent or better environmental control, and I'll be happy to consider it.

The accessibility to non-experts, and the fact that it just works out of the box without fiddling around optimising settings, is why I have a Bambu family at work and zero Prusas.

Worth noting those are essentially different "generations" of printers, as well as different kinematic systems, CoreXY vs Cartesian.

The Bambu Lab P2S is a CoreXY printer, and that's why it's physically faster than the Prusa MK4S which is a bed slinger.

Your car had a recall because the wheels might fall off? Which one?

406,000 Civics were recalled

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/honda-...

Specifically, this only affected red-edged premium alloy rims that were OEM made but not installed unless you bought them separately. Not an engineering issue with the vehicle so much as those rims may have had a manufacturing defect in certain batches.

The overly cautious recall announcement was promptly clarified to owners by dealerships, and impacted a small subset. (I have a Civic.)