SpaceX has an developed an unfair advantage: by dramatically reducing the cost of space launches, they can afford to send satellites to space at a price nobody can compete with.
It’s so low that few other companies can replicate it easily, soon
[2/
So SpaceX will send hundreds of thousands of satellites to orbit, covering all earth with enough bandwidth and at a low enough cost that it will be much much cheaper than cable for billions of people, starting with rural and suburban areas.
[3/]
So they might have billions of customers in telecoms, one of the most lucrative industries in the world.
The more customers, the more money, the more satellites, the more launches, the cheaper the launching, the cheaper satel cost, the lower the price, the more customers...
[4/
All of that will in turn make SpaceX an even stronger company, and might finance the colonization of Mars.
@elonmusk wants 1M ppl in Mars. If they cost $100k each, that’s $100B.
If Starlink has 1B customers paying $5/month, it pays for Mars w/ a few years of profits
[5/5]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
UNPRECEDENTED
The singularity is near. We're 1-6 years away from AGI according to: 1. Prediction markets 2. Insider insights 3. Benchmarks 4. Lack of barriers to growth 5. Current progress
This breakneck speed of AI progress is illustrated by OpenAI's o3 and DeepSeek🧵
1. Prediction Markets:
Average bet on AGI: November 2030
Mode: June 2027
Two other bets in Metaculus match this:
• Two years to weak AGI, so by the end of 2026
• Three years later, Superintelligence, so by the end of 2029
This remote corner of the US has something unique that might soon make it one of the most important cities in the world—the city of the future. It is officially Boca Chica today, but it might soon become Starbase 🧵
This point at the south of Texas is the southernmost point in the continental US
That is extremely useful for rockets
The biggest share of weight in rockets is fuel. Most of it is burnt just to carry the rest to orbit! Rocket makers do anything they can to reduce fuel consumption
2. Los Angeles:
• Trading hub between the world (Pacific) and the US (railways)
• Weather + biggest coastal valley on the Pacific➡️agriculture & cheap building
• Oil
• Landscapes + far from the East Coast centers of power➡️Attracted the film industry
People think we must shrink the world's population to be happy, but they're wrong
A world with shrinking population would be decaying, poor, brutal, violent, hopeless
A world with 100 billion people would be dynamic, rich, innovative, peaceful, hopeful
🧵
1. In the last 2 centuries, the world got better as the population exploded:
• Richer
• Live older
• Lower child mortality
• Fewer homicides
• Fewer war deaths
• Fewer hours worked
• Lower share of poor people
And much more: fewer infections, diseases, accidents. More racial equality, sexual equality. Instant access to all the knowledge in the world. We can go anywhere, whenever we want...
We can raise our population on Earth from 8 billion to 100B humans if we want to
Would we starve?
Be too crowded?
Would pollution explode?
Ecosystems collapse?
No! Don't believe alarmist degrowthers. This is why they're wrong: 🧵
Degrowthers put a label to "how many humans can the Earth sustain": carrying capacity
Their estimates vary wildly
Wait, what? What a surprise, the mode of their estimates is 8B—exactly the current number of ppl on Earth
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
Or they lack imagination: OMG the Earth is already on the brink. Surely not one more soul fits here!
And then they try to find out what limits we might be hitting. Their most common fears are: 1. Room 2. Food 3. Water 4. Energy 5. Pollution 6. Resources
Let's look at each: