> Here's how I summarized my initial point in the TL;DR on my ultimate parent post: Yes. I responded directly to that comment, acknowledged it as interesting,

> Here's how I summarized my initial point in the TL;DR on my ultimate parent post: Yes. I responded directly to that comment, acknowledged it as interesting, but stated that there are obvious reasons why this fact - that you are building your entire argument around - isn't the primary concern in this transaction. In exchange, you offered me feigned disbelief that all the insanity surrounding Musk isn't totally distorting the economic incentives at play. > Following that are a lot more words that dive deeper into that discussion Following that are a lot more words saying the same thing over and over again: > ...either $40B of equity or $97B of cash. 97 bigger than 40 > in the scenario where they chose the $40B in OpenAI equity, they are eschewing $97B with which they can achieve their mission if they choose 40 they are eschewing 97 (which is bigger than 40) > but in this case they get to deploy $97B of capital to their goals. In this case, rather than having 40 to put towards their goals, they have 97, 97 of course being higher than 40. > My prior post raised all sorts of reasons and you seem to have decided to ignore them to build strawmen. It's not a strawman, it's essentially the only thing you've had to say this entire thread. If an executive order is passed to make 40 greater than 97 your entire argument completely dissipates.