London seems a tad uneasy with all the hoopla in NYC for tomorrow's SpaceX IPO...
https://www.aol.com/articles/photos-show-lobbies-goldman-sachs-090901000.html?utm_source=copilot.com
Thursday, June 11, 2026
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Streamy
I'm totally happy. Chatted with Copilot last night about what building apps
might be like with the help of AI. incidentally got introduced to Streamlit, a
Python package for sharing data that looks like fun:
Beginning
La Presse is publishing the results of a pre-election survey -Synopsis/LaPresse - this morning
and it is good news for the CAQ. Under the leadership of Ms Christine Frechette, they
seem to have staged a comeback from the abyss to be considered a serious contender
for re-election.
What struck me about this is how important such pre-election polls can be. The detailled
analysis of the findings goes into how Ms Frechette is rated as competent and trustworthy.
And the fact that it is the Seniors population - ahem, my age group - who are the main
supporters of that faction. We don't get around that much; comforting to know that we
all agree she is aces. (As is her husband, the head of investment services at Desjardins, where
many elderly people bank).
So it is a three way race, with the PQ who are both aided and sidelined with their referendum
promise: aided, because it gives them young electors; handicaped because the oui is no stronger
than that.
And the liberals are slipping, increasingly incapable of appealing to Francophone voters, and now
no longer the refuge of New Quebecers.
Feels like the voting has already begun. In a sense, it has...
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Apple_Splits
Still thinking about the profitability of Apple stock issue. Asked Gemini to
redo the price per share graph, and add the splits. This gives a better idea of
the evolution of an investment.
https://gemini.google.com/share/d8f127b7a8ce
The splits:
Cumulative:
Discrete:
Monday, June 8, 2026
Impatients
Watched a fascinating vid on the greening of Saudi Arabia. Below:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1XseYJ4AHJ/
* * *
For those impatient about Friday's SpaceX IPO:
https://gemini.google.com/share/7692837bb00f
Montreal_geo
Sometimes it is a good idea to see oneself from the perspective of someone other.
Below, Montreal. Gets all the Geography right!!
* * *
What is 232 meters in feet?
232 meters is approximately 761.15 feet.
Quick breakdown:
The exact conversion factor is 1 meter = 3.28084 feet
So: 232 × 3.28084 = 761.15488
Rounded to a clean number, you can say 761 feet.
If you want it in inches, yards, or compared to something familiar (like building heights), I can do that too.
How tall are the super high-rises on Billionaire's row in NYC?
The super‑tall towers on Billionaires’ Row rise from about 1,000 feet to over 1,550 feet, making them some of the tallest residential buildings on Earth. Here are the key heights of the major towers, grounded in the most authoritative sources available:
🏙️ Heights of the major Billionaires’ Row supertalls
Central Park Tower — 1,550 ft (472 m)
The tallest residential building in the world and the tallest structure on Billionaires’ Row.
111 West 57th Street (Steinway Tower) — 1,428 ft (435 m)
The world’s most slender skyscraper, famous for its extreme 1:24 width‑to‑height ratio.
432 Park Avenue — 1,397 ft (426 m)
One of the earliest “pencil towers” and a defining icon of the Row.
One57 — ~1,005 ft (306 m)
Not as tall as the newer towers but historically important as the building that kicked off the Billionaires’ Row boom. (Height inferred from its classification as a supertall >300 m in the source.)
🧭 What counts as “Billionaires’ Row”?
The term refers to the ultra‑luxury residential skyscrapers clustered along West 57th Street, just south of Central Park. Many of these towers exceed 1,000 ft (300 m), placing them in the supertall category.
🏗️ Why they’re so tall
Developers compete for unobstructed Central Park views, which requires extreme height.
NYC zoning allows very high floor‑area ratios on 57th Street, enabling slender, ultra‑tall designs.
Demand from global ultra‑wealthy buyers fuels the economics of building upward.
📌 Quick comparison table
For comparison, how tall is the Empire State Building?
The Empire State Building is 1,454 feet (443 m) tall at its very top, including the antenna.
To compare directly with the Billionaires’ Row towers you asked about:
Tip height: 1,454 ft (443.2 m)
Roof height (no antenna): 1,250 ft (381 m)
Floors: 102
📏 How it stacks up against Billionaires’ Row
Central Park Tower: 1,550 ft → taller than the Empire State Building’s tip
111 W 57th: 1,428 ft → slightly shorter than the Empire State Building’s tip
432 Park Ave: 1,397 ft → shorter than the Empire State Building
One57: ~1,005 ft → significantly shorter
If you want, I can put together a clean side‑by‑side height chart of all of them.
The ESB is an office tower built in 1930, in Art Deco style. Has it ever had structural problems??
Here’s the short, clear answer up front:
The Empire State Building has never had a structural failure, and it has never faced any fundamental structural problems.
Its steel frame is famously over‑engineered and has proven exceptionally resilient for nearly a century.
That said, it has experienced a few notable incidents and engineering challenges — none of which compromised the building’s overall integrity.
🏗️ What the page you have open confirms
From the Empire State Building article you’re viewing :
1. The steel frame is extremely stiff and robust
The building was designed to handle heavy gravitational loads and strong winds.
Its structural stiffness is 42 lb/ft², higher than the Willis Tower (33) and John Hancock Center (26).
This is one reason it has aged so well.
2. It withstood a direct airplane impact in 1945
A B‑25 bomber crashed into the 79th–80th floors in fog, killing 14 people — but the building suffered only localized damage and reopened two days later.
This is often cited as proof of the building’s structural resilience.
3. No long‑term structural issues have ever been recorded
The article notes no foundational problems, no frame fatigue, and no major structural retrofits.
The building’s steel skeleton and limestone façade have held up remarkably well.
🧱 Minor or non‑structural issues over the decades
These are not structural failures, but they’re worth noting:
Airship mooring mast proved unusable due to dangerous wind conditions — but this was an operational issue, not a structural flaw.
Elevator modernization was required over time (normal for a 1930s skyscraper).
Not structural.
Broadcast antenna changes in the 1950s and after 9/11 required engineering work, but again, not structural problems.
Facade and window replacements occurred as part of modernization, not because of structural failure.
🧩 Why the ESB has aged so well
A few reasons:
Overbuilt steel frame — early skyscrapers used more steel than strictly necessary because engineers were still learning the limits.
Simple, symmetrical massing — no extreme cantilevers or slenderness ratios like modern “pencil towers.”
Deep foundations anchored in Manhattan schist — extremely stable bedrock.
Regular maintenance — as a landmark, it receives continuous care.
🏁 Bottom line
The Empire State Building has never had a structural problem that threatened its integrity.
It remains one of the most solidly built skyscrapers ever constructed — a testament to early 20th‑century engineering.
If you want, I can compare its structural robustness to the modern super‑slender towers on Billionaires’ Row, which do face engineering challenges the ESB never had to deal with.
Sunday, June 7, 2026
BDay
Ken, Looks like I didn't wish you a Happy Birthday on your actual BD. Let me do so now:
Have a very Happy Birthday!. Below, a little ad-free music to enjoy this summer...
https://www.yout-ube.com/watch?v=Yw7X98ATN5A
* * *
Perplexity Ai ...SpaceX, cont'd:
But then Apple stock became insanely valuable once the company matured... Maybe this is...
Yes—your intuition is reasonable, but it depends on what Apple had become at each stage. Apple’s mature years were still rewarded with a premium valuation because the market believed it could keep generating strong cash flow, expanding services, and defending its ecosystem, even as growth slowed.
That said, a company can be both mature and still valuable if it has huge profits, pricing power, and a loyal installed base. In Apple’s case, investors were not paying for raw sales growth alone; they were also paying for reliability, margins, and recurring revenue.
So the comparison to SpaceX is not a simple “high P/S means overvalued forever.” A high P/S can make more sense when a company is growing fast and has a credible path to much larger profits later, but it becomes much harder to justify if growth slows or losses stay large. Apple eventually looked expensive at times too, but it was a very different business profile from a pre-profit or deeply loss-making company.
A clean way to phrase your thought is:
“High revenue multiples can be justified for companies with exceptional scale, profitability, and durable competitive advantages, but not every expensive stock is an Apple-like exception.”
So for the humble investor, it is a trade-off between not wanting to miss out on what may be the opportunity of a lifetime, and not wasting what little investment capital one has!!??
Yes — that is basically the dilemma, and it is a real one in investing: the tension between FOMO and capital preservation.
On one side, some opportunities do become extraordinary winners, and missing them can matter a lot over time. On the other side, chasing a hot story can lead to overpaying, which increases the risk of permanent capital loss if the valuation cools or the business disappoints.
A sensible way to frame it is:
If the position is small, the upside of being early can be meaningful, but the loss should still be survivable.
If the position is large, preservation matters more, because one bad outcome can damage the whole portfolio.
If the thesis depends mainly on hype rather than fundamentals, caution is usually warranted.
So the humble investor is not choosing between “miss everything” and “buy everything.” The real task is to size risk so that you can participate in upside without turning one speculative idea into a capital-destroying mistake.
* * *
* * *
Asked Gemini Ai for the Graph...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)