Disregard anything Stephen Wolfram says about anything other than his Mathematica software. He's a pretentious, arrogant twat who thinks he's unlocked the keys to the Universe and is trying to convince the rest of the world of his brilliance.
If you bought one shared near the end of 1998, you would have paid around $30. That share would be worth around $22 now. So, you would have gained around $9 not accounting for reinvestment of dividends.
Not a good return on investment, in comparison, but you picked 1998 in the middle of the dot com boom. If you picked the end of 1995, you'd have paid $7 and have around $40 today, which isn't too much worse of a return than the S&P 500.
This isn't to say Intel hasn't been poorly managed, by the way.
You can't just look at the stock price. INTC has split and had dividends since 1998.
If you bought $10,000 of INTC in Sept 19th, 1998 and held it to today the stock would be worth $17,000 and you would've collected almost $12,000 in dividends.
Is there any site that shows historical stock graphs with an option to include dividend reinvestment and adjust for inflation? Practically every online conversation about stock returns makes these mistakes.
Yes, think if you have invested in Bitcoin when it was announced on Slashdot. The problem with cherry picking dates is that we don't have a time machine yet.
> failed to get any sort of traction in phones or tablets
And had they stuck with XScale it I don't think it would be surprising if they ended up in Qualcomm's current position (default high-end ARM CPU maker). Yet they consciously decided to throw it all away..
With the stock split and dividends reinvested, the $1 would now be worth $1.64, _not_ inflation adjusted. You'd still be in bad shape if you inflation adjust - the $1 with inflation would be $1.93. So you've still lost money overall, alas.
If you didn't reinvest the dividends you'd be ahead, though. Which is kind of ironic - but you'd have taken out a fair bit of money from 2016-2022 when the price was high.
I can attest to it, the value hasn't grown much in my inactive portfolio. This portfolio was set up as set it and forget it in 1999. I will need to run a realized gain/loss statement.
More than 10 years and that's why Intel's stock price fell so precipitously as Intel cancelled that dividend and Intel losing its dividend focused luster to dividends focused investors!
But the amount of Folks that comment on these Mergers & Acquisitions(M&A) sorts of articles and the US regulations regarding M&As and the main litmus test for rejection there being if that Acquisition will reduce the competitive landscape of Intended market players that compete in that market!
And So Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite and previous Windows on ARM Laptop/PC products are more direct competition to Intel's/AMD's Windows on x86 products! Linux on ARM as well, as Tuxedo Laptops(Linux OS Based OEM) is planning on releasing a Snapdragon X Elite Linux OS based laptop!
That and Intel only controls the IP surrounding the x86 32 bit/Earlier 16/8 bit parts of the x86 ISA while AMD's the IP owner of the x86 64 bit ISA extensions! But Intel and AMD have a cross licensing agreement between them for their respective parts of the x86 ISA IP rights and so Intel has no legal right to transfer AMD's x86 64 bit ISA extensions License to any third party and ditto for AMD and any of the 32 bit earlier parts of the x86 ISA that are Intel's IP.
Qualcomm or any other competitor in the CPU/dGPU market will not be able to get past the regulators easily and Nvidia can not acquire Intel because of Intel's Discrete GPU market presence where Intel's ARC/Later Discrete GPUs are a welcome 3rd player attempt at the low end to mainstream dGPU market place Competition against AMD and Nvidia!
> The 1-year-old boy in a green button-up shirt drank milk from a bottle, played with a small purple ball that lit up when it hit the ground and occasionally asked for “agua.”
> Then it was the child’s turn for his court appearance before a Phoenix immigration judge, who could hardly contain his unease with the situation during the portion of the hearing where he asks immigrant defendants whether they understand the proceedings.
> “I’m embarrassed to ask it, because I don’t know who you would explain it to, unless you think that a 1-year-old could learn immigration law,” Judge John W. Richardson told the lawyer representing the 1-year-old boy.
> The boy is one of hundreds of children who need to be reunited with their parents after being separated at the border, many of them split from mothers and fathers as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance policy.” The separations have become an embarrassment to the administration as stories of crying children separated from mothers and kept apart for weeks on end dominated the news in recent weeks.
> Critics have also seized on the nation’s immigration court system that requires children — some still in diapers — to have appearances before judges and go through deportation proceedings while separated from their parents. Such children don’t have a right to a court-appointed attorney, and 90 percent of kids without a lawyer are returned to their home countries, according to Kids in Need of Defense, a group that provides legal representation.
Granted, but I view SpaceX as being Gwynne Shotwell's company since a few years, not Musk's, who seems busy trolling people on Twitter. Shotwell's been the one running the business.
Musk is, and remains, both CEO and chief engineer of SpaceX. According to Isaacson's biography, Musk is the person who suggested and, against considerable opposition from his engineers, insisted on Starship switching to stainless steel instead of carbon fiber.
That's absolutely 100% false. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA considerable authority to shut down a food factory if it is not adhering to regulations and laws regarding safety.
Where do you find that the FDA cannot shut them down?
But who is making those regulations if congress doesnt write those specific regulations into law? Isn't that the whole point of this being overturned.. the FDA no longer can make regulations that arent explicitly outlined in a bill.
The FDA can absolutely make regulations so long as they are done with the authority granted to them in the law. The problem has been agencies, such as the FDA whom I have worked with for going on a decade, have grossly overstepped their congressional authority. When challenged, the government's case is that the administrative regulators know best, and because of Chevron, the courts should defer to them, even if it's an overreach beyond their congressional authority.
This is not about specific regulations, it's about the authority to write those regulations and where the boundaries are.
Therein lies the issue: Regulators have gone beyond their authority, not only into what is unreasonable, but what is not backed by statute. Chevron said the courts should give deference, unfortunately that deference has gone too far.
Taking your point however, I think congress will eventually be forced to act on this. We do need some deference to regulators, but that deference has been turned into legislative abdication. This decisions sets that right.
When congress is ready to write a law that gives greater deference to regulators they will. Until then, in my opinion, this was a proper decision of government restraint.
I don’t think I can support an objective idea that it’s “gone too far” when the decision was on ideological boundary. This was political activism not jurisprudence.
By opening the package of salmonella you've agreed to binding arbitration agreement in the venue of their choosing.... Sadly I'm not even that far from serious.
