this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
1100 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

85274 readers
4142 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 14 points 2 days ago

Fair. There's no universe in which those three companies should be foisted on passive investors at this stages.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 44 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's not based it's just that every investor can see that AI has no actual profitable future. Also no one wants to have anything to do with the company run by Elon Musk, he has nothing to contribute and tends to spend his entire time generating bad PR.

These are what we call financially sound decisions.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

I don't think the refusal has anything to do with those real reasons but more the arrogance of spacex in not following the rules for ipo's.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/sp-global-keeps-fast-entry-proposal-unchanged-spacex-listing-looms-2026-06-04/

' S&P ⁠said "exceptions to the financial viability, seasoning, and IWF (investable weight factor) requirements should not be granted solely based on market capitalization". To ​be included in the S&P 500, a company must be profitable under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in its most recent quarter as ​well as for the sum of its most recent four quarters, according to one of the rules S&P left unchanged. SpaceX posted a net loss of $4.94 billion in 2025, even as revenue rose 33% to $18.67 billion.'

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 331 points 3 days ago (3 children)

For those that didn't see the article from yesterday, the relevant rule that they refused to waive was the one that said a company must be profitable.

lol

[–] criticon@lemmy.ca 118 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Lololololol the president of my company went full AI shithead recently and he posted how it was a big deal that they were going public and he was talking about how he see it as a great investment to purchase shares and I asked how it was a great investment to get shares of a company severely in the red and my comment got deleted in a few minutes

Edit: we also got claude code for everyone in the company and they are monitoring token use (as in we need to use a lot) and I asked if they were concerned that the token price would rise if the board of directors of anthropic suddenly wanted to make a profit and that comment also got deleted (this was in a virtual townhall so we can ask stuff, usually they just ignore the ones they don't want to answer but they were actually deleting them this time)

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 64 points 3 days ago

You know this already but your company management are morons.

My last company they didn't delete messages. That would be to obvious.

"I am sorry we didn't get around to answering all the questions live. We will respond to the remaining by email"

No more questions were answered.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago

is...your company publically traded itself? looking for an easy short

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like they don't want to go along with these sham corporations and their smoke & mirrors accounting. It's like they want the companies in their index to be on sound financial footing or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 168 points 3 days ago (11 children)

Lol, they got told to fuck off for not being profitable.

bG4SjYwwmQ9Myf6.gif

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

ngl if AI dies i hope we get more ethical models, open-weight models (mostly) solve this, but it would be cool if it was trained only on public domain.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 2 days ago

Unless the AI is going to give us a cure for cancer or something I'm not really bothered. Seriously the environmental cost is ridiculous I don't care how open weight they are they still practically need a fusion reactor in order to operate and increase the temperature of the local environment by 12°

[–] spazzman6156@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

That's not AI dying. That's just ethical AI... Which should absolutely happen. Same for GMOs

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

IMHO I'm kinda glad it was trained on all the forum posts I made during what turned out to be the golden age of training data. Now the LLMs sound a little bit like me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

While I love the sentiment; I'm reading this decision by S&P as just about not bending their rules. AI is not thriving fast/convincingly enough to break tradition of big finance; I don't think that makes S&P an ally. And I suspect this means they'll just be joining a bit later.

[–] cardfire@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

'A bit later' is really all the is required to meet the standard. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/21/tesla-isnt-a-gurantee-for-the-sp-500-even-with-year-of-profits.html

S&P Dow Jones has a history of making companies earn it, including previous Elmo ventures.

I'm not bullish on any of it, and I'm desperately trying to exit AI holdings as swiftly as I'm able, but I am deeply comforted by major indexes requiring companies demonstrate profitability or at least meaningful actual revenue beyond the self-dealing that we've seen between the IPO hopefuls.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

This stock is more fitted to nasdaq anyway, and I think they said they would bend overbackwards for them and change their rules.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 338 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Excellent! Fuck Musk.

And while I'm not an AI hater, that is 100% the investors trying to cash out before the industry runs into trouble.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 86 points 4 days ago

Yeah, it really is painfully obvious that the fatcats are trying to cash out on the bubble before it blows.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 75 points 3 days ago (20 children)

Good. Those clowns will trash the index funds that so many depend on for retirement funding if they tank. And AI certainly will, and SpaceX is dependent on the whims of a drug addicted wingnut.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 8 points 2 days ago

I can't stop laughing

[–] StillAlive@piefed.world 124 points 4 days ago (33 children)

I've already withdrawn money I had invested in US.

You can't convince me this isn't bubble:

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Here's an even more interesting one:

Nasdaq 100 vs P/E ratio historic graph

It's the P/E ratio (the ration between the stock Price of a company and it's Earnings) of the Nasdaq vs the Price.

Notice how the Nasdaq price has tracked the P/E, with since at least 2020 the stock prices not increasing because company earnings are going up but rather just from increased speculation hence the rise in the ratio of stock Prices to Earnings.

The P/E (in other words, the company stock prices relative to the actual money a company makes) is now about twice as much as back in 2020.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 30 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The main issue as usual is US hegemony (or what's left of it) has a way of fucking up the rest of the world. When that bubble pops it's going to cause a whole bunch of industries trouble.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 45 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Hence why there is frantic effort in decoupling from USA and connecting with alternative markets in the rest of the world.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] vatlark@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago (14 children)

I didn't know that the SNP500 had such rules, but I'm so happy they didn't cave.

I hope people sue the indexes for changing the rules. Im not sure its possible but it really makes an index meaningless if its not consistent.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 60 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Asset allocation funds might still include it. Your Vanguards and BlackRocks.

[–] tburkhol@slrpnk.net 56 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The very broad funds definitely will - VTI/VTSAX - but at lower weights and under less time pressure than the rigid index funds (VOO/VFIAX). That takes off a lot of the liquidity squeeze and (presumably) reduces their loss.

But you have to remember that people who use these funds intentionally invest in obvious losers and willingly overpay for hyped stocks because they believe, in the long run, that buying obvious losers is more than balanced by also buying the unexpected winners.

SpaceX is just the first time an oligarch tried so obviously to rig the passive investor structure to his favor, and I'm glad the S&P people didn't cave.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MushuChupacabra@piefed.world 38 points 4 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›