That's already very high. Their profitable businesses are (1) Starlink and (2) Launching satellites. Starlink is growing revenue at maybe 50%, and revenue for launching satellites is growing maybe 10% annually.
But Goldman Sachs, which is leading the IPO process is telling investors that it expected SpaceX’s total revenue to reach $474 billion in 2030, up from $18.7 billion last year. That's 25x growth of revenue in just 4 years.
xAI is a failed company, as is X. Their merger into SpaceX is basically a scam. Elon Musk justified this by saying he is going to send xAI servers into space using SpaceX. This is an unproven idea, not ready for investing.
It is surprising that business travel still exists. I would've thought that due to improvements in video calling tech during covid, the need for travel to customer site would decline precipitously.
SpaceX posted $18.7 billion in 2025 revenue. A typical premium valuation for a top-tier tech company with excellent growth potential might be around 10x to 14x revenue, which would imply a strong IPO valuation of roughly $187 billion to $262 billion. Against that benchmark, a trillion-dollar-plus valuation is astonishing. At that level, investors would be paying far beyond normal tech-company multiples. I suspect many people buying into the IPO could end up losing money.
SpaceX lost $4.3 billion in the first three months of the year alone. Revenue was $4.7 billion and growing, but it was far lower than that of tech giants like Meta, which brought in $56.3 billion in the same period and has a stock market valuation of $1.4 trillion.
If this was only impacting folks who choose to invest in SpaceX that would be one thing. But they are forcing SpaceX down the throats of anyone who has a 401(k) and down the throats of anyone who has index funds such as QQQ, and Nasdaq suspended their normal rules for including SpaceX.
Goldman Sachs--they are leading the IPO process--told a potential investor that it expected SpaceX’s total revenue to reach $474 billion in 2030, up from $18.7 billion last year. So 25x in just 4 years. Morgan Stanley, which is also working on the IPO, said in an analysis shared with investors that it anticipated SpaceX’s revenue would hit $3.4 trillion by 2040.
I hope Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are sued out of existence for perpetuating this fraud.
I do. If it were possible we'd surely see them everywhere. Even if time travel was a one-way trip there's enough future billions of us that there'd be massive numbers with the sort of incurable fascination seth the past that they'd be motivated to travel back and see what it was like.
Doesn't really seem any more or less likely than alien intelligence at any rate.
That reminds me of an amusing story I read in Analog several years ago. I don't remember the name or author.
It was about the first time travel trip. The team that developed the first time machine decided to send the first traveler to visit Shakespeare, figuring that Shakespeare had a flexible enough mind to not be freaked out by the visit.
When the traveler got to Shakespeare they were right that he did not freak out. In fact he took it entirely in stride. The time traveler was a little confused that Shakespeare was taking it so well. Shakespeare even asked what gift the time traveler had brought, saying that "all the early ones brought gifts".
The time traveler had in fact brought a gift--a nicely bound volume of Shakespeare's collected works. Shakespeare looked at it, said something about maybe he could sell the binding, then said probably not, and tossed it on a pile of books, which the traveler realized was a pile of similar books.
Shakespeare noticed that the traveler was now throughly confused and realized that the traveler was in fact one of the very earliest, and explained that most of early travelers brought books.
The traveler was still confused over the idea that Shakespeare had met other time travelers, saying "but I'm the first time traveler!". Shakespeare told him that he may have been the first to leave, but he certainly wasn't the first to arrive, and said at some stages in his life he was being visiting frequently by time travelers, which was actually annoying--although not as annoying as it was for Jesus, who Shakespeare says another time traveler decided to introduce them once.
At that point numerous other time travelers started arriving. They were reporters from throughout the timeline popping in to try to get an interview with the first time traveler. The first time traveller is now close to completely losing it, and Shakespeare says he can handle it and steps in to act as a press agent for the first time traveler.
If backwards time travel turns out to possible my guess is that there will be some limitation that prevents scenarios like the one in that story from happening. My guess is either (1) the time machine will only be able to go back to when it was created (think of it like going back to a save point in a game), or (2) when a time machine goes back to some point in spacetime it creates some sort of exclusion zone in a region around that point that precludes any other time machine from arrive at a point in that exclusion zone.
I suspect time-travelling and Shakespeare is a whole sub-genre, the one I know is one where Shakespeare travelled forward in time and enrolled in a university Shakespeare course - which he then failed...
There must be at least one where all his works were actually sent back in time for him to copy from, leading to all sorts of questions as to who originally wrote them.
BTW...I actually asked ChatGPT (just 3.5, don't have 4 access) what story it might be based on a description. Couldn't do it, gave lots of nonsense answers along the way, but when I prompted it with the name of the author and the word "immortal" it finally got it. Was kinda surprised actually, I'd think that's the sort of thing an LLM should be able to do quite well.
In fact, on further experimentation, my only conclusion is god help anyone who tries to use ChatGPT to help with studying literature.
Well, sure, it's possible my consciousness is one that's travelled along every single branch where the backwards-time-travel didn't happen, but that strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely if there have been even only a fifty such attempts in all human (future) history.
What I mean is when a particle travels back in time, the universe branches forward in parallel, from that particle, at the instant it arrives.
This resolves all paradoxes as the independently instantiated time streams can't interact.
I believe there are present theories of time/space that rely on this kind of idea.
It also might mean any time traveller could never get back to the exact "when" they came from. Though if there was a way to traverse parallel time streams, there'd be no paradox as the moment they arrived "back" would also branch.
Time traveling humans is more likely for the following reason: It requires only one thing: worm hole or some other yet-to-be-invented mechanism for traveling to the past. For this to be alien intelligence, two things are required: First alien intelligence has to exist, and second, they too need a mechanism for speedy travel, to travel to another galaxy such that they can reach the destination within an individual alien's lifetime.
Aliens could exist with or without speedy travel. We can assume slow-traveling aliens must be from long-lived civilizations, but we can't assume fast-traveling aliens are from short-lived civilizations.
Slow-traveling aliens likely come from a long-lived origin civilization (although it's possible that origin civilization went "extinct" millions of years ago, but its descendants continue to reproduce of spaceships traveling slowly outward in different directions, these descendants would arguably be from the same origin civilization, which must definitionally be long-lived).
Fast-traveling aliens might be from a civilization doomed to be short-lived, but they achieved FTL travel so we just happen to meet them. They could have popped up a million years ago, and be on schedule for extinction in another million years. But since they can travel quickly, they don't need to be a long-lived civilization in order for it to be likely that we might encounter them. They could be one of many short-lived civilizations.
In a universe without FTL travel, the probability that we encounter an alien civilization is dependent on the expected duration of an alien civilization; the more long-lived civilizations that exist, the more likely we'll encounter one, because they've had more time to slow-travel. In such a no-FTL universe, there could be a high probability of civilization, but with a low expected civilizational lifetime. So we'd be unlikely to encounter any civilization, despite the high number of them in the universe.
So what I find ironic is that even with a bunch of aliens crashing (regardless of how slowly) onto our planet, we can't actually infer much new information about the Fermi paradox, or whether we've made it past the Great Filter. Either we're encountering civilizations that must be long-lived because they're slow-traveling, in which case there may not be a filter because the paradox was resolved by the lack of FTL travel; or they can be both long-lived and unknowably short-lived, in which case we don't know where the filter is because any civilization we meet could go extinct next (perhaps achieving FTL travel even achieves some prerequisite for a specific class of extinction event?).
So either there might not be a filter, or we don't know where it is. The most informative scenario would be for us to meet a long-lived, fast-traveling civilization.
I'm probably more positive alien intelligence exists than I am that humanity will last long enough to discover such a mechanism. To be clear, I'd say both are quite likely - I just very much doubt the mechanism actually exists.
This Samsung [1] is only 14" and yet has 2880x1800 display. That's 200% resolution. Anything less than 200% is not interesting to me. iPhone with Retina display debuted in 2010. Isn't 13 years enough time for PC laptops to catch up?
This 16 inch laptop has 2560x1600 resolution. If you set it to 200% then that's the equivalent of 800 pixels which is what you expect in a 13 inch laptop. For a 16 inch laptop there's not enough pixels.
Why set it to 200%? Because as Steve Jobs has explained, the only resolution that looks good after 100% is 200%. Then 400%. If you set it any in-between scale (such as 150% or 300%) then you will have display artifacts, such as horizontal lines appearing to have different widths when they are all in fact set to 1px.
> If you set it any in-between scale (such as 150% or 300%) then you will have display artifacts, such as horizontal lines appearing to have different widths when they are all in fact set to 1px.
This is only true with the approach macOS takes. When set to 150% on macOS the app renders at 200% and the compositor downscales. On Windows however there is no downscaling: the app renders directly at 150% thus avoiding any artifacts.
That is only true for apps where everything is vectors and it knows about scaling, since apps draw to the pixel buffer themselves. Many contain rasterized resources with fixed resolutions.
Fortunately on Windows and Linux you don't have to scale the same way as Apple does pixel doubling everything. And even Apple has shipped laptops where the default display resolution is not a integer scale of the panel resolution (e.g 12" MacBook).
200% means double the resolution of the "previous era" (1990s and 2000s), which was around 96 dpi. Modern applications will not see any scaling artifacts.
Applications from the "previous era" that are not HighDPI-aware will get scaling... each application pixel will occupy 4 physical pixels.
yeah this Asus laptop (https://www.asus.com/laptops/for-home/vivobook/vivobook-pro-...) has the same resolution display for the same dimensions too. Maybe this is the only high dpi panel mass produced enough and 16'' doesn't have an economical version due to lower economies of scale? just a guess I am not very sure.
reply