>Returns like that are not asymmetrical and can only be produced with leverage, at least when you're trading paper.
Definitely not true, looking at their last 13f (filed in may 2026) their top3 holdings were BE, SNDK and CRWV which had 1y returns of 1,500%, 2,000% and 500% at the time of the filing. They accounted together for 15% of the fund (plus an unknown amount of exposure through options). These tickers show up in the 2 and 3 previous filings so they had exposure to some of that run up, and looking at the filings further back they had some very concentrated exposure to INTC in a half year period where the stock went up about 200%
Sure, but 15% of your portfolio going up by 1000% isn't going to give you an overall 400%+ YTD return, which is where SALP was before this drop, and obviously it is no secret that they were highly leveraged.
Aschenbrenner obviously understood diversification, but was overconfident and greedy and used leverage to boost returns. He was lucky that Citadel saw fit to step in and buy their portfolio rather than having to dump it into the market which would likely have been far worse.
I was answering his point that 400% returns are impossible without leverage, and my argument was that they were in the right stocks at the right time to achieve those kinds of returns without leverage. Since a lot of their portfolio is/was options without strikes or durations listed and the exact dates of their buys/sells is unknown it's not possible (AFAIK) to reconstruct their P&L exactly but it seems plausible to me that, given the stocks they were concentrated in and the quarters they start reporting those positions, that they could have gotten 400% returns in a year without leverage. If I were an LP reading their filings saying that (for example) they held 25% of the fund in Intel during a half year period where it went up 200%, plus some other similar holdings, resulting in overall 400% returns I wouldn't automatically conclude they were levered.
Sure if you buy one stock and it goes up 1k percent it's possible. But that's unrealistic and being that concentrated is unacceptable for a fund.
Any sophisticated investor that read that a fund they were invested in a single name would be upset. Unless it's a special vehicle or they're activist and have a position for some strategic purpose. But just to let such a large percentage of your fund on a single name stock is insane.
I'll also add that options are essentially leverage. Leverage doesn't have to be borrowing it's just describing what $1 price change does to your position. You can buy at the money calls for 3-12% of the stock price. And they move up slightly less than $1 if stock goes up, so you're essentially getting 10-20x leverage. And if they're not above the strike price at expiration they're worthless
I don't have anything to say about their concentration beyond that if you read their early 13Fs (ex https://13f.info/13f/000204572425000006-situational-awarenes...) they were in fact "that concentrated" which is why it's plausible they got 100s of % returns without leverage.
Re options being leverage - everything you said is true but unfortunately the public filings dont have strikes or durations so it's not possible to say whether they bought short dated otms with 0.05 delta or leaps with close to 1 delta or something in between.
Or perhaps this was more of an attempt to lock in some profits while still riding it higher? It seems most of his puts were in the chip stocks while his portfolio was more focused on "next phase" datacenter/infra stocks.
They had very large put positions on stock that they had very small long stock positions in, I think they were net short in almost everything they held puts on (except the smh etf put which I guess is an attempt to cancel out sector beta)
The other side could be someone with natural exposure to the question that wants to hedge, for example people traveling to/from the middle east were exposed to the Iran war question(s) and could get insurance against airspace closure through prediction markets.
This argument doesn't work for 90+% of the volume on PM/Kalshi but I think most of the questions there are just gambling.
I got a new computer a couple weeks ago, with a 5070, and installed ubuntu on it and it was incredibly slow. I looked online and found some claim that 24.04 has some incompatability with nvidia, tried installing a bunch of different driver versions and nothing helped, tried turning everything off in gnome tweaks and still slow, tried installing 26.04 and 22.04 but the installer hangs forever in both, tried linux mint 24.04 still slow, gave up and installed windows with WSL :/
I'm running Ubuntu on a 9950x3d and 5090 and it is not slow. Games in Steam with Proton are buttery smooth.
One hiccup was I had to disable variable refresh rate because moving the cursor didn't "count" as a reason to update the screen, so moving the cursor on its own (rather than e.g. moving a window) looked choppy.
But a choppy mouse cursor isn't "slow".
Tip: if you have a performance problem, run Claude Code (or an AI agent of your choice) and ask it to investigate.
Claude Code would probably attach a profiler and take a peek under the hood. Agents are making sysadmin and system introspection way more accessible, and the tools, unlike Windows, are generally command-line, easy for an agent to automate.
Mac chose another path. You buy a pc and OS and the same vendor makes both. You can’t choose but at least you also never need to wonder whether your laptop and OS work together.
Microsoft took a more difficult path. They have close contact with OEMs, run certification programs etc. A massive apparatus to make it somewhat likely that hardware will ”just work”.
Both of these are valid models. I’d be happy to use either. I’m not very keen on doing this work myself though. I can buy a PC with Ubuntu but then it’s still hit and miss if I buy something new for it. There is no canonical store selling canonical gear like the Apple Store
I asked this (in a less accusatory tone) of an NSO employee once and he said something about how the big tech companies also spy on people and do unethical things.
There are already cheap, domestic robots for cleaning dishes, cleaning the floor, cleaning clothes, making coffee, heating and cooling food, turning screws, drilling holes and so on. All those robots represent a greater than 90 percent (and sometimes a greater than 99 percent) savings in time relative to doing the same tasks manually. You still have to move the objects they operate on around within your house but that's mostly the only part of the task you have to do.
As someone who played the roomba game quite a bit - you transfer the problem of vacuuming to the problem of very frequent robot cleaning. I've saved more time switching to a high powered central vac than I ever did with constantly cleaning the robot because I had the audacity to own a fluffy dog.
Also people claiming cleaning isn't "creative" or "fun". Steam has a whole genre of games simulating cleaning stuff because the act of cleaning is extremely fun and creative to a lot of people: https://store.steampowered.com/app/246900/Viscera_Cleanup_De... being a great example
Actually I do NOT want my robot to do my laundry for me! And because I'm garbage at painting and comparatively better at laundry, I DO want it to paint for me.
> Also people claiming cleaning isn't "creative" or "fun". Steam has a whole genre of games simulating cleaning stuff because the act of cleaning is extremely fun and creative to a lot of people: https://store.steampowered.com/app/246900/Viscera_Cleanup_De... being a great example
Someone making a game about an activity doesn't mean that the activity is fun or desirable in real life at all.
I mean yes there are people that find comfort in cleaning but they are not the target audience of cleaning simulators at all.
Unfortunately many things aren't dishwasher safe, some things don't fit in the dishwasher, and often certain types of food are not properly washed off in the dishwasher.
> All those robots represent a greater than 90 percent savings in time relative to doing the same tasks manually.
Lol, nope.
Dishwashers solve at best some 50% of the hassle that are the easy to wash table dishes, while being completely unable to clean oven ones. Floor cleaners solve a 5 minutes task in a couple-of-days-long house upkeep. Coffee makers... don't really automate anything, why did you list them here? And there's no automation available for heating and cooling food. And the part about drilling and turning screws also isn't automation at all.
The only thing on your list that is close to solved is clothes cleaning. And there's the entire ironing thing that is incredibly resistant to solving. But yeah, that puts it way beyond 90% solved.
>All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them
The source of most of the videos from both sides is random social media users.
Even the videos and info from the IDF I would regard as credible, since they released similar videos and info from the Lebanon operation last year that was consistently corroborated by evidence from social media (there was no internet blackout in Lebanon so every IDF strike on an urban area had multiple videos from different perspectives).
Social media users placed by iran's full missile defense systems? Social media users at the bottom of 100m of granite? Social media users amongst the iranian barracks?
I called the war for Russia ~2 years ago, just as the "counter offensive" by Ukraine was starting. Go back, if you wish, to that time in the news and find exactly what english-speaking western median, and social media, was saying.
What is the picture you get, of Ukraine and its counteroffensive, delivered to you from these sources?
It's always a little stunning just how easy it is for publics to be manipulated. Oh what a world.
Anyway why don’t we see videos from Iran of Israeli jets being shot down ? Why is there no footage of Irans airforce engaging Israel ? Why didn’t the B-2 spirits get attacked ? You can say it’s all lies and propaganda , but it’s not because there is no evidence to the contrary being presented.
The network Assaf got from founding and selling a big cybersecurity company and then being a VP-equivalent at Microsoft for 5 years (immediately before found Wiz) is more relevant than what he had from being an IC in the army 15 before that.
The earnings per share certainly increases. But this is (at least theoretically) offset by the fact that the firm's assets have decreased. For example, if the buyback was paid for with cash, then prior to the buyback, the shares represented a claim of ownership not just on future earnings, but also on that cash reserve.
That said, this is all under a theoretical model (as in Miller-Modigliani theorem). In practice/empirically, there is reason to plausibly believe that e.g. the decision to announce a buyback has a signalling effect and so can increase share prices.
Is there a heuristic for how much of the value of a share is assigned to asset value vs forward looking earnings? Many of the ‘hot’ stocks like Nvidia seem almost all forward looking.
I saw a comment (not in the linked thread) that notes that the system prompt probably includes something along the lines of "You are a helpful AI assistant...", which does feel like a bit of a giveaway in the sense that there are many documents on the internet that discuss testing AI assistants and therefore a document who's topic is an AI assistant is likely to contain discussion of testing the assistant (and if the document is written from a first person perspective, of the assistant, then it's likely to contain text from the perspective of the assistant discussing it's own testing).
Definitely not true, looking at their last 13f (filed in may 2026) their top3 holdings were BE, SNDK and CRWV which had 1y returns of 1,500%, 2,000% and 500% at the time of the filing. They accounted together for 15% of the fund (plus an unknown amount of exposure through options). These tickers show up in the 2 and 3 previous filings so they had exposure to some of that run up, and looking at the filings further back they had some very concentrated exposure to INTC in a half year period where the stock went up about 200%