5 ms·

Nvidia replaces Alphabet as Wall St's third most valuable company

38 points by dev_tty01 3y ago

brcmthrowaway 3y ago
Even reuters has adblock.. this should be criminal.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- simmerup 3y ago
  Why?
  - blagie 3y ago
    Same general reason I'm not allowed to violate your security systems. In reverse, people have been sued for less under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act If I have a technology which bypasses my employer's thingamagicy, I can land in prison. If my employer does the reverse, they generally won't.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      It is not fraud to not send me whatever content I want. If I try to watch a show on Netflix, but I’m not a customer, there’s nothing wrong with sending me a page that says “get an account,” instead of a show. I block ads, and so I’m not a customer of Reuters. It is fine if they want to send me the content anyway, and I’m still not going to render their ads. But the flip side of the idea: send me whatever you want, I’ll render it however I want, is that they might decide not to send me anything.
      - blagie 3y ago
        A lot of things illegal under CFAA shouldn't be considered fraud, but here we are. If e.g. this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz The reverse should happen too.
        bee_rider 3y ago
        I’m not sure exactly what you mean, this all seems pretty vague. What specifically do you mean by “the reverse?” If the idea is that this one law has been applied in a dumb way, therefore all laws should always be applied in a dumb way, then… no, that makes no sense.
        blagie 3y ago
        If corporations can use CFAA to go after individuals, individuals should be able to enforce CFAA against organizations as well. I gave one example, but there are many others. It's used (alongside DMCA) to lock down all sorts of devices around your home or to give draconian criminal penalties to what should be civil employee-employeer issues. So long as that's the case, then if I have a technological measure to protect my data and privacy, and you come up with some scheme to circumvent it and fingerprint my browser anyways, I should have a CFAA case against a corporation who tries to break it. I can go down a few rabbitholes of why being able to modify content is important to individuals with disabilities, or a plethora of other reasons why these things are harmful, but the short story is that you shouldn't be able to break things on my computer. Here is the text: (7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any— (B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; As interpreted in the reverse direction, if: (a) Youtube is trying to extort me to subscribe or watch ads for financial benefit (b) To do so, attempts to detect my ad blocker (which very clear goes beyond authorized access) They've committed a criminal act.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Paywall: <https://neuters.de/technology/nvidia-outstrips-alphabet-third-largest-us-company-by-market-value-2024-02-14/ https://neuters.de/technology/nvidia-outstrips-alphabet-thir...>
iwontberude 3y ago
I find it interesting that NVidia’s own tech could be used to one day undermine its patent moat by creating non-infringing variants. Maybe patents aren’t long for the world now.
lemoncookiechip 3y ago
"During a gold rush, sell shovels." Good on them, those H100 are selling like hotcakes, very expensive ones.
- danhau 3y ago
  Yeah, I think that old wisdom summarizes it perfectly.
JonChesterfield 3y ago
Two things I think are interesting in this context. One is that Nvidia are giving companies investment (i.e. money) with a requirement that they spend it on buying GPUs from Nvidia. That doesn't seem totally the same as organic demand. The second is Nvidia being valued higher than almost all US companies, where their business model is mostly selling things to said companies. This doesn't make sense to me. Their next earnings statement is about a week away. I think that'll be an interesting evening.
- scarlson 3y ago
  Meanwhile, Tesla's worth more than every other car company and sells nowhere near the same number of cars.

38 points by dev_tty01 3y ago

brcmthrowaway 3y ago

Even reuters has adblock.. this should be criminal.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
simmerup 3y ago
Why?
- blagie 3y ago
  Same general reason I'm not allowed to violate your security systems. In reverse, people have been sued for less under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act If I have a technology which bypasses my employer's thingamagicy, I can land in prison. If my employer does the reverse, they generally won't.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    It is not fraud to not send me whatever content I want. If I try to watch a show on Netflix, but I’m not a customer, there’s nothing wrong with sending me a page that says “get an account,” instead of a show. I block ads, and so I’m not a customer of Reuters. It is fine if they want to send me the content anyway, and I’m still not going to render their ads. But the flip side of the idea: send me whatever you want, I’ll render it however I want, is that they might decide not to send me anything.
    - blagie 3y ago
      A lot of things illegal under CFAA shouldn't be considered fraud, but here we are. If e.g. this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz The reverse should happen too.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        I’m not sure exactly what you mean, this all seems pretty vague. What specifically do you mean by “the reverse?” If the idea is that this one law has been applied in a dumb way, therefore all laws should always be applied in a dumb way, then… no, that makes no sense.
        blagie 3y ago
        If corporations can use CFAA to go after individuals, individuals should be able to enforce CFAA against organizations as well. I gave one example, but there are many others. It's used (alongside DMCA) to lock down all sorts of devices around your home or to give draconian criminal penalties to what should be civil employee-employeer issues. So long as that's the case, then if I have a technological measure to protect my data and privacy, and you come up with some scheme to circumvent it and fingerprint my browser anyways, I should have a CFAA case against a corporation who tries to break it. I can go down a few rabbitholes of why being able to modify content is important to individuals with disabilities, or a plethora of other reasons why these things are harmful, but the short story is that you shouldn't be able to break things on my computer. Here is the text: (7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any— (B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; As interpreted in the reverse direction, if: (a) Youtube is trying to extort me to subscribe or watch ads for financial benefit (b) To do so, attempts to detect my ad blocker (which very clear goes beyond authorized access) They've committed a criminal act.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Paywall: <https://neuters.de/technology/nvidia-outstrips-alphabet-third-largest-us-company-by-market-value-2024-02-14/ https://neuters.de/technology/nvidia-outstrips-alphabet-thir...>

iwontberude 3y ago

I find it interesting that NVidia’s own tech could be used to one day undermine its patent moat by creating non-infringing variants. Maybe patents aren’t long for the world now.

lemoncookiechip 3y ago

"During a gold rush, sell shovels." Good on them, those H100 are selling like hotcakes, very expensive ones.

danhau 3y ago
Yeah, I think that old wisdom summarizes it perfectly.

JonChesterfield 3y ago

Two things I think are interesting in this context. One is that Nvidia are giving companies investment (i.e. money) with a requirement that they spend it on buying GPUs from Nvidia. That doesn't seem totally the same as organic demand. The second is Nvidia being valued higher than almost all US companies, where their business model is mostly selling things to said companies. This doesn't make sense to me. Their next earnings statement is about a week away. I think that'll be an interesting evening.

scarlson 3y ago
Meanwhile, Tesla's worth more than every other car company and sells nowhere near the same number of cars.