WoV stock portfolio
Have the Bitcoin Bros moved on?
Quote: AutomaticMonkey
OK, so what is a satellite orbiting Neptune supposed to do, and who is going to pay to put one there? Trillions in market cap for that?
I think you are assuming technology and science are not going to evolve. IN 100,000 years we may be inhabiting every planet in our solar system and some outside it. If we are inhabiting Neptune it may make sense to have satellites there. Don't be short sighted.
Quote: DRichQuote: AutomaticMonkey
OK, so what is a satellite orbiting Neptune supposed to do, and who is going to pay to put one there? Trillions in market cap for that?
I think you are assuming technology and science are not going to evolve. IN 100,000 years we may be inhabiting every planet in our solar system and some outside it. If we are inhabiting Neptune it may make sense to have satellites there. Don't be short sighted.
link to original post
In 100K years our descendants may be as different from us as we are from Neanderthals. But do you think we'd evolve into something that can live on Neptune, or really any other planet?
https://science.nasa.gov/neptune/neptune-facts/#h-structure
Technology and science advancing has an unexpected effect: it increases the things we are capable of doing, but it also changes the things we are motivated to do. For example with an accelerator we can turn now turn lead into gold, but unlike medieval alchemists our scientists have no interest in doing so. The vacuum tubes we could make today with laser manufacturing would far exceed the capabilities of the good old 12AV7, but for obvious reasons no one is developing this technology.
Thus, I do not believe humans will ever live on another planet, in the form of biological humans. What if... when the time comes that our planet becomes obsolete and uninhabitable, we had made contact with innumerable other civilizations, we will have exchanged information with them (including our history, culture, and genome), we will have seen countless others appear and disappear, and understand that our time, as a particular people on a particular planet, is up, we've shared everything we've done, someone else can recreate our next generation somewhere else, and for us, physically, to up and move somewhere else isn't worth the trouble.
We would be like a 105-year old man on his last bed at the hospice. He sees his children, stooped over with age themselves, his grandchildren, his greats holding a great-great or two, and he's perfectly happy with what is going on. How important would it be, for him, to live for another month, with great effort and expense for him and those around him? Unlikely very much. That's what we will be. Maybe by that time we will have gotten the genomic and ecosystem data from some species that really can live on Neptune, and we've cloned them and put them there, and their homeworld will be doing the same for us, on some weird rocky little planet, full of that nasty corrosive oxygen and way too close to their star to be habitable by those Neptunian types.
That's how I see the future. Doesn't make for good entertainment. Musk is a visionary but so were all the science fiction writers and futurists of the past, and none of them did a good job of predicting where we will (want to) go next.
Quote: DRich
I think SpaceX has a great future. What other company is doing successful space launches? They have put over 10,000 Starlink satellites into orbit. I have no idea if their valuation is good or not, but they will be the leaders in space launches for at least the next 10 years. Also, don't forget the head of NASA is a two time SpaceX commander and it is obvious that the NASA space program is in peril. NASA will be using SpaceX for most of their launches over the next 10 years.
link to original post
The scepticism towards the launch of the stock wasn't so much about spacex itself it was the bundling with loss-making products like X and Grok. Additionally the attempt to bypass normal index rules made many investors nervous since most of the stock purchases would be coming from people who knew literally nothing about it.
Of the 20 million BTC in circulation, roughly 45% were purchased at $65,000 or more, with a third bought for over $90,000.
Quote: billryanMikey Saylor is roughly 11 billion dollars in the red on his BTC purchases.
Of the 20 million BTC in circulation, roughly 45% were purchased at $65,000 or more, with a third bought for over $90,000.
link to original post
Do you know if that $11 billion is personal funds or is through his investment company? I understand in 2020 he started buying for his company and also personally buying.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryanMikey Saylor is roughly 11 billion dollars in the red on his BTC purchases.
Of the 20 million BTC in circulation, roughly 45% were purchased at $65,000 or more, with a third bought for over $90,000.
link to original post
Do you know if that $11 billion is personal funds or is through his investment company? I understand in 2020 he started buying for his company and also personally buying.
link to original post
I believe that is in reference to the 17,000 that he owns, although they may have factored in his 10% ownership in Microstrategies. Micro has been a net seller since April, but they have a pattern of selling by the dozen and then buying by the hundreds.
Just read an article about giving your heirs more money while you are alive and they are younger and presumably need it more than X years from now when I kick the bucket.
It really makes sense. I have to change my mindset though.
Younger son bought a house. Backyard flooded a lot so needed to put in drain tile stuff. But the fence also was not made to completely enclose it, so it would be safer for their kids and dog. Grandpa is buying them said fence.
The son is afraid his father will remarry and that the new wife will get everything, and his father doesn't want to lose out on watching his grandchildren grow up.
Quote: SOOPOO
Just read an article about giving your heirs more money while you are alive and they are younger and presumably need it more than X years from now when I kick the bucket.
It really makes sense. I have to change my mindset though.
Younger son bought a house. Backyard flooded a lot so needed to put in drain tile stuff. But the fence also was not made to completely enclose it, so it would be safer for their kids and dog. Grandpa is buying them said fence.
Glad to hear that you are able to help out your children and their families. I think the sweet spot for helping the kids if you can afford it, is when they are mid 30's to mid 40's. At that age they are generally more stable and have learned some financial lessons where they are less likely to do something foolish with the money.
Obviously, the big concern becomes gift tax. I believe if you keep your giving under about $17k a year there will be no tax on it. If they are married you can give your kid and their spouse each around $17k with no tax issues.
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOO
Just read an article about giving your heirs more money while you are alive and they are younger and presumably need it more than X years from now when I kick the bucket.
It really makes sense. I have to change my mindset though.
Younger son bought a house. Backyard flooded a lot so needed to put in drain tile stuff. But the fence also was not made to completely enclose it, so it would be safer for their kids and dog. Grandpa is buying them said fence.
Glad to hear that you are able to help out your children and their families. I think the sweet spot for helping the kids if you can afford it, is when they are mid 30's to mid 40's. At that age they are generally more stable and have learned some financial lessons where they are less likely to do something foolish with the money.
Obviously, the big concern becomes gift tax. I believe if you keep your giving under about $17k a year there will be no tax on it. If they are married you can give your kid and their spouse each around $17k with no tax issues.
link to original post
Both my sons are very fiscally responsible. Ex and I put plenty of money in their names since they were babies. Grown I think better than WoV portfolio! And I can’t be sure, but I don’t think either has taken out a dime.
I think the best thing about having ‘money’ is not the things it can buy for you, but rather the feeling of ‘safety’ it brings. That if the AC goes kablooey, it’s ok. If the kid wants to play travel hockey, it’s ok. If gas goes to $6 a gallon, you can still drive to golf.
40+% of Americans are not prepared to handle a $1000 emergency.
In Feb, 2023, I paid $11,400 for an 8% stake in a comic book- Batman 1. The owner retained 20% of it, and we all agreed to split the storage and insurance on it. The owner paid for that and would be reimbursed after the sale.
The book sold last week for 301,000, a slight disappointment as I was thinking closer to $350,000
The auction house gets 10%(normally 18% but we negotiated a lesser fee.) $30,000
The insurance and storage came to $12,000+
The owners 20% of the rest came to $51,000+
After a few more fees and expenses, I'll clear less than $20,000.
The book was valued at $100K when we bought it; it tripled in value, and yet I'm getting much less than double my money, and that is before taxes. That money in a CD would be worth almost 14,000.
The auction house made $30,000 from the sellers, and almost double that from the buyer. Nice work if you can find it.
Quote: billryanMy friend has two sons. One tends bar and is a bit of a free spirit. The other is middle management at a transportation company. My friend's wife died about two years ago. Until then, they split time between the house on Long Island, where they raised the family, and a condo in Florida. Both properties are paid off, and he spends almost all his time in Florida. He's well off, and most of his estate will go to the kids, easily a million each. They'd like him to sell the house in NY and split the money. They originally asked for an equal one-third each, but now are "willing" to split 50-50. His position has evolved from you'll get it when I die to agreeing to sit down and discuss a solution.
The son is afraid his father will remarry and that the new wife will get everything, and his father doesn't want to lose out on watching his grandchildren grow up.
link to original post
If a new wife is a concern, your friend can put his holdings, RE, etc in a trust that passes to the kids when he dies.
As the OP said, it's a matter of changing one's mindset.
Far too many of my friends are helping out parents and children and approaching retirement under less-than-ideal conditions.
It wouldn't surprise me if multi-generational housing becomes a trend.
I don't know- will I get in trouble for telling her I'm 10 years older than I am and have heart disease?
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyHey I have an idea! I can take a list of assets and my will to one of those Nevada adult establishments that are not found in Las Vegas, make some young courtesan my sole beneficiary right then and there, and dare her to screw me to death!
I don't know- will I get in trouble for telling her I'm 10 years older than I am and have heart disease?
link to original post
I like the concept but not the details. Instead of going to one of those cat houses, I might try to do the same thing with a college coed I found at the university. If it does kill me, what a way to go.
Musk's Space X stock (spcx) hits the market today and there is a tremendous amount of excitment
the company has no earnings and lost $4.94 billion in the 1st quarter of this year
and it lost about the same in 2025
many analysts are saying it's way, way overvalued with the share price coming in at $135 and a market valuation of $1.77 trillion and are predicting it will crash but many, many others will want to take the ride or try to get in and out very quickly with huge profits
the stock will have exposure to many investors because it will be included in S&P index funds due to its sky high valuation
I'm not trading it but it will be quite interesting to see what happens with it
when the stock launches today Musk will become the world's first trillionaire since he owns billions of shares - quite amazing
.
I cancelled as I'm not too interested in that speculation. It seems the idea with an IPO is that they don't want the embarrassment of having it go lower, not to mention the real fact of investors getting pissed. So if you want in on the initial offering price you have to be in on it while it is still private I guess
Quote: odiousgambitas a test, I tried to see if I can buy some SPCX, it was easy, but no way to get in on the $135 price. So now it's just a crapshoot to see if it goes up or down with first price expected to be 165 or so.
I cancelled as I'm not too interested in that speculation. It seems the idea with an IPO is that they don't want the embarrassment of having it go lower, not to mention the real fact of investors getting pissed. So if you want in on the initial offering price you have to be in on it while it is still private I guess
link to original post
An example of how working with an advisor is useful. Fidelity was offering a subscription a while back, while today they are only offering market offers. I have a Hail Mary order for 200 shares at 101.
Quote: billryanQuote: odiousgambitas a test, I tried to see if I can buy some SPCX, it was easy, but no way to get in on the $135 price. So now it's just a crapshoot to see if it goes up or down with first price expected to be 165 or so.
I cancelled as I'm not too interested in that speculation. It seems the idea with an IPO is that they don't want the embarrassment of having it go lower, not to mention the real fact of investors getting pissed. So if you want in on the initial offering price you have to be in on it while it is still private I guess
link to original post
An example of how working with an advisor is useful. Fidelity was offering a subscription a while back, while today they are only offering market offers. I have a Hail Mary order for 200 shares at 101.
link to original post
SpaceX currently at $166. At the current price Elon Musk's share of SpaceX are valued at $847 billion. His Tesla shares are worth a measly $280 billion.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryanQuote: odiousgambitas a test, I tried to see if I can buy some SPCX, it was easy, but no way to get in on the $135 price. So now it's just a crapshoot to see if it goes up or down with first price expected to be 165 or so.
I cancelled as I'm not too interested in that speculation. It seems the idea with an IPO is that they don't want the embarrassment of having it go lower, not to mention the real fact of investors getting pissed. So if you want in on the initial offering price you have to be in on it while it is still private I guess
link to original post
An example of how working with an advisor is useful. Fidelity was offering a subscription a while back, while today they are only offering market offers. I have a Hail Mary order for 200 shares at 101.
link to original post
SpaceX currently at $166. At the current price Elon Musk's share of SpaceX are valued at $847 billion. His Tesla shares are worth a measly $280 billion.
link to original post
Musk can't sell his shares until the lockdown period ends. I suppose he'll be able to borrow against his shares if he is desperate.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryanQuote: odiousgambitas a test, I tried to see if I can buy some SPCX, it was easy, but no way to get in on the $135 price. So now it's just a crapshoot to see if it goes up or down with first price expected to be 165 or so.
I cancelled as I'm not too interested in that speculation. It seems the idea with an IPO is that they don't want the embarrassment of having it go lower, not to mention the real fact of investors getting pissed. So if you want in on the initial offering price you have to be in on it while it is still private I guess
link to original post
An example of how working with an advisor is useful. Fidelity was offering a subscription a while back, while today they are only offering market offers. I have a Hail Mary order for 200 shares at 101.
link to original post
SpaceX currently at $166. At the current price Elon Musk's share of SpaceX are valued at $847 billion. His Tesla shares are worth a measly $280 billion.
link to original post
Musk can't sell his shares until the lockdown period ends. I suppose he'll be able to borrow against his shares if he is desperate.
WoV portfolio for some reason lagging my others considerably. Probably at only +250% after today.
many pundits are predicting a stock market pullback or correction or even a crash similar to the dot com crash -
there was a long article in the NYT times today predicting that one of these very negative scenarios will take place soon
the NYT article recommended selling out stock positions and moving into bonds or bond funds
(I recently liquidated almost all of my bond funds and bought more of my tech index fund. I know there's more risk but I will still be okay even if there is a very large correction)
I asked google AI about this ______and got this very interesting reply (interesting to me anyway)
"AI Overview
Yes. Pundits and perennial bears calling for a crash every single year is a well-documented Wall Street phenomenon. Because markets eventually experience downturns, anyone predicting a crash annually will inevitably be right eventually, but their timing is usually wildly off.
Why Do Pundits Keep Doing It?
Sensationalism Sells:
Doom and gloom generate far more headlines, clicks, and book sales than calmly predicting continued prosperity .
Broken Clock Logic:
Statistically, minor corrections and pullbacks happen almost every few years. If a pundit predicts a crash long enough, a subsequent bear market is framed as a "successful" forecast
The Cost of Listening to Them
Missed Gains:
Investors who pull their money out of the market to "stay safe" during these ongoing warnings often miss out on significant long-term growth and recovery rallies
Poor Market Timing:
Attempting to sell right before a crash and then trying to buy back at the absolute bottom is historically nearly impossible to execute successfully"
.
You might as well warn people not to go running with scissors, and you might not even need AI to do so.
Quote: billryanWhy post such nonsense? If you think the market will crash, then your portfolio should reflect that
don't know what you're posting about
I posted the opposite of this
indicating I believed predictions of a crash are not useful and that I do not react to them
and that I was aggressively buying into a tech stock fund
another nonsensical post from you - not at all unusual - nobody will be surprised
.
Hardly doomsday stuff, this is always safe, sound advice at any time, but especially if stocks have been going up... your portfolio balance is affected by definiton, after all. He doesn't say to allocate heavier to bonds and cash, just keep the balance. Going for megacaps can lead to poor diversification. And, he says market timing is a bad idea.Quote:Perhaps this is a good time to rebalance, by reducing your U.S. megacap stock allocations, shifting some holdings into bonds and cash and diversifying globally, using low-cost index funds.
It can be easy to misunderstand the difference between market timing and rebalancing
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/13/business/spacex-ipo-musk-stock-bubble.html .
Quote: odiousgambitHe doesn't say to allocate heavier to bonds
he does say exactly that
and you even quoted him
again, here it is:
"reducing your U.S. megacap stock allocations, shifting some holding into bonds"
I'm not saying that that is poor advice; just that I won't be following it
it's quite possible U.S. megacaps will continue to rise for quite a while - he can't possibly know if that that will or won't happen - neither can I of course
and that is exactly what market timing is; even if he states that it is not
he is trying to claim that rebalancing is not market timing - in my mind it clearly is - claiming it's not just doesn't fly
.
he is not alone in saying there is a big difference. Many places will automatically rebalance for you, my HSA does for example.Quote: lilredrooster
he is trying to claim that rebalancing is not market timing - in my mind it clearly is - claiming it's not just doesn't fly
.
link to original post
You and I can go to see what our fave robots have to say LOL. Posting it here will make Bill angry you know
Quote: odiousgambithe is not alone in saying there is a big difference. Many places will automatically rebalance for you, my HSA does for example.Quote: lilredrooster
he is trying to claim that rebalancing is not market timing - in my mind it clearly is - claiming it's not just doesn't fly
.
link to original post
You and I can go to see what our fave robots have to say LOL.
link to original post
you have a point - granted - I guess you could frame it that way
the S&P 500 has gone up in 8 out of the last 10 calendar years with an average annualized return of 15.2% reflecting a cumulative total growth of about 310% when dividends are reinvested
imagine how much an investor would have lost by "rebalancing" after some of those big years
for example - 2019 - 31.46%_________2021 - 28.66%__________a down year in 2022 and then________26.24% in 2023
also, when you rebalance your profits from your sale of stocks and/or funds are taxed as capital gains
if your strategy is instead buy and hold the taxes are deferred indefinitely
if such holdings are passed to heirs no taxes will ever be assessed on the regular non Ira accounts
.
I am presently embracing likely underperformance by shifting equity assets (very slowly) into a MMA. A clear example of ‘rebalancing’.
Just checked. If SPCX and TSLA became worthless tomorrow, Musk would ‘only’ be worth $200 billion. So $900 billion is tied up in those two stocks.
the bottom line is this:
stocks will outperform bonds and mma accounts by a large % in the long run
if an investor is significantly into bonds or cash he may have protected himself somewhat in the short run
but he surely gave up much in the long run
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
the bottom line is this:
stocks will outperform bonds and cash by a large % in the long run
if an investor is into bonds or cash he may have protected himself somewhat in the short run
but he surely gave up much in the long runQuote: SOOPOORebalancing really means ‘take money from my strongly performing asset class and put it into my poorly performing asset class’. I’ve outperformed my peers by understanding that.
your peers, whoever you are referring to must have performed quite poorly
as I recently pointed out your 255% gain in 15 years in your Wov stocks that you continually brag about is way, way less of a gain than that of the common benchmark - the S&P 500 index
.
link to original post
You often miss the point. Again. Since my portfolio was NEVER 100% in stocks the EXPECTED most likely result would be to lag the S & P 500, which is all stock.
I am not bragging. I’m reporting results.
My peers paid ‘professional money managers’ who had them in more bonds/cash than I was in, so the EXPECTED most likely result is that they would lag me! AND they paid tens of thousands of dollars for that advice!
My taxable account has way overperformed the S & P, because its biggest single stock is TSM, and biggest ETF is QQQ. When I sell some of those to get money for food, clothing, Alaskan cruises, I am paying capital gains on almost all of the money withdrawn!
Quote: SOOPOO
You often miss the point. Again. Since my portfolio was NEVER 100% in stocks the EXPECTED most likely result would be to lag the S & P 500, which is all stock.
I am not bragging. I’m reporting results.
My taxable account has way overperformed the S & P, because its biggest single stock is TSM, and biggest ETF is QQQ. When I sell some of those to get money for food, clothing, Alaskan cruises, I am paying capital gains on almost all of the money withdrawn!
okay - my bad - I apologize
I wasn't aware of that
and btw I deleted the part of my post referring to your accounts realizing that my words were too strong and that I probably wasn't seeing the whole picture - but I shouldn't have posted it at all
also, my posting that stocks will outperform bonds is somewhat misleading
it of course depends on which stocks are being looked at
most of those who pick stocks will not be able to equal or better the common benchmark - the S&P 500 index
anyone who has picked stocks and has beaten that benchmark has done something that is impressive
.
Between 1975 and 2021, of over 9,000 IPOs, 60% were trading below their IPO price three years later.
Only 16% of IPOs double within three years; the majority of IPOs will be lower within three weeks of their offering, and most will be within 10% of their IPO price after ten weeks. All figures come from a Yahoo White Paper on IPOs 1975-2021
Quote: billryanIf you think you missed out on SpaceX, take comfort in these figures.
Between 1975 and 2021, of over 9,000 IPOs, 60% were trading below their IPO price three years later.
Only 16% of IPOs double within three years; the majority of IPOs will be lower within three weeks of their offering, and most will be within 10% of their IPO price after ten weeks. All figures come from a Yahoo White Paper on IPOs 1975-2021
link to original post
I don't think I'd buy it at 10% of its IPO price, and it's not that I have any quarrel with Musk. I just want to know how they are going to monetize launching rockets to an extent that justifies that market cap.
Quote: lilredrooster.
the bottom line is this:
stocks will outperform bonds and mma accounts by a large % in the long run
Not if you allow me to pick them.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf you think you missed out on SpaceX, take comfort in these figures.
Between 1975 and 2021, of over 9,000 IPOs, 60% were trading below their IPO price three years later.
Only 16% of IPOs double within three years; the majority of IPOs will be lower within three weeks of their offering, and most will be within 10% of their IPO price after ten weeks. All figures come from a Yahoo White Paper on IPOs 1975-2021
link to original post
I don't think I'd buy it at 10% of its IPO price, and it's not that I have any quarrel with Musk. I just want to know how they are going to monetize launching rockets to an extent that justifies that market cap.
link to original post
Its income isn't from launching rockets. Starlink is incredibly profitable, and they just raised the subscription price in Cochise by $500 per year.
Does it justify the $150 IPO price? Time will tell.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf you think you missed out on SpaceX, take comfort in these figures.
Between 1975 and 2021, of over 9,000 IPOs, 60% were trading below their IPO price three years later.
Only 16% of IPOs double within three years; the majority of IPOs will be lower within three weeks of their offering, and most will be within 10% of their IPO price after ten weeks. All figures come from a Yahoo White Paper on IPOs 1975-2021
link to original post
I don't think I'd buy it at 10% of its IPO price, and it's not that I have any quarrel with Musk. I just want to know how they are going to monetize launching rockets to an extent that justifies that market cap.
link to original post
You sound like me when TSLA first went public. Market cap of $1.7 billion for a company bleeding money?
My AI assistant expects SPCX to be profitable by as soon as 2031. When I try and use ‘normal’ metrics like EPS, they just don’t work for these ‘newfangled’ companies. It’s almost like religion. You buy the stock on faith….
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanIf you think you missed out on SpaceX, take comfort in these figures.
Between 1975 and 2021, of over 9,000 IPOs, 60% were trading below their IPO price three years later.
Only 16% of IPOs double within three years; the majority of IPOs will be lower within three weeks of their offering, and most will be within 10% of their IPO price after ten weeks. All figures come from a Yahoo White Paper on IPOs 1975-2021
link to original post
I don't think I'd buy it at 10% of its IPO price, and it's not that I have any quarrel with Musk. I just want to know how they are going to monetize launching rockets to an extent that justifies that market cap.
link to original post
You sound like me when TSLA first went public. Market cap of $1.7 billion for a company bleeding money?
My AI assistant expects SPCX to be profitable by as soon as 2031. When I try and use ‘normal’ metrics like EPS, they just don’t work for these ‘newfangled’ companies. It’s almost like religion. You buy the stock on faith….
link to original post
That's a reasonable analysis too. It's speculative.
The difference I believe is cars are useful, we all buy them, lots of people make money selling them, and there's room for another seller. But I believe there will have to be new, not-yet-imagined uses for space launches for that to be a profitable activity. I can't think of any, and me being at a loss for words should be a warning!
Quote: billryanHow do you value Colossus? Its lease value could exceed two billion a month, making the value on paper a quarter of a trillion dollars. How about the planned data centers in space? Will Grok dominate? Launching payloads for governments and private companies is just one revenue stream.
link to original post
Colossus is just another supercomputer project, that's an xAI project and I think Musk showed poor judgment by naming it that. Is he going to build another one in Russia called Guardian, just to be a wiseguy? I'm not invested enough in the sector where I could really say one LLM is better than another and will dominate. But due to the building and infrastructure requirements none of them may actually dominate, just end up serving different niches. Think GM, Ford, Chrysler.
There will never be data centers in space. No way to power or cool them.
Quote: AutomaticMonkey
There will never be data centers in space. No way to power or cool them.
At some point in the future solar power may be efficient enough to power anything that we can imagine.
As far as cooling:
" The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270 °C; −455 °F).[3]"
Quote: DRichQuote: AutomaticMonkey
There will never be data centers in space. No way to power or cool them.
At some point in the future solar power may be efficient enough to power anything that we can imagine.
As far as cooling:
" The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270 °C; −455 °F).[3]"
link to original post
When I was a kid I loved pranks, physical stunts, mentalist tricks, anything to freak people out.
There was one where I would take a strip of aluminum foil, heat one end of it until it was glowing red hot, then grab it with my bare hand, howling in agony. But that was just a silly trick. It didn't hurt at all, and the reason why is the same reason space cannot be used as a coolant.
Now as far as solar energy- if you are close enough to the sun to gather enough sunlight to power a data center, what is that sunlight doing to the entire exposed part of your structure?
