vannevar

6 ms·

1.
by vannevar 3d ago
I assume it is the same reason Facebook serves dodgy ads: it makes them money and they have had no liability for the material they choose to serve to users. There are a handful of types of content that could generate bad press (some sexual
2.
by vannevar 4d ago
It would be more accurate to say Nvidia is the central bank of data center projects. The vast majority of capex associated with AI is for data centers, not the actual technology. Nvidia needs to create data center projects to sell to, hence
3.
by vannevar 9d ago
FY2026 losses already far exceed their projections and are widening, not narrowing. They postponed their IPO, and two key executives have left very recently. So the evidence leans heavily toward that assumption, yes. See my comment in the s
4.
by vannevar 9d ago
OpenAI lost $12.3B in Q2 2026, which if you extrapolate losses the way they extrapolate revenue, implies north of $40B in losses for FY2026, against their own projection of $14B for the year. Coupled with their postponed IPO (which would ha
5.
by vannevar 9d ago
Informed in this instance implies information aligned with the opinion. He may indeed be informed about Astra's merits, but there may be no correlation between that information and his opinion, because of the overwhelming financial int
6.
by vannevar 10d ago
In this case, Jensen Huang's statements can't be taken as informed, unbiased opinion. OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty and Nvidia cannot afford for OpenAI to fail. Nvidia has provided significant direct and indirect finan
7.
by vannevar 10d ago
>A corporation is just one or more people pooling their resources for legal and accounting purposes. It is not. That's one aspect, but another major aspect is that those individuals pooling their resources are not liable for the cor
8.
by vannevar 11d ago
>The problem isn't the unfoundedness it's that it's extrapolated beyond what the foundation supports. The purpose of creating a "Biden crime family" was to implicate Joe Biden in the actions of his son without ne
9.
by vannevar 11d ago
>CU was absolutely the correct ruling as it just means I can take money from wherever I’ve earned it and spend it on publicizing my message. Are you literally a corporation? If not, you should perhaps read the decision.
10.
by vannevar 12d ago
>I wonder what else we have in common? Well, obviously not an appreciation for the distinction between evidence and opinion. The fact is that there is clear, uncontroverted evidence that Donald Trump has profited directly from his presid
11.
by vannevar 12d ago
The problem with government was that wealthy charlatans were rigging the system in their own favor. Naturally, the solution was to put a wealthy charlatan in charge of the whole thing and eliminate the middle man.
12.
by vannevar 12d ago
It doesn't seem like they asked about specific levels or branches of government, so presumably the respondents were giving a general impression. And in that case, it's hard to believe that a corrupt President wouldn't strongl
13.
by vannevar 12d ago
>...Republicans dropped from 87% to 83% after their guy was elected, whereas Democrats nearly 1.5x'd their number of skeptics. This is not surprising; a big reason that Republican voters were able to justify voting for Trump and ope
14.
by vannevar 12d ago
>The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed. I don't know, if we'd had an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated government, we'd have comprehensive bans on government insider
15.
by vannevar 12d ago
No one is excusing them. But it's worth pointing out that in every aspect of government ethics reform, from campaign financing to insider trading by government officials, the legislation promoted by Democrats is stronger than that prom
16.
by vannevar 14d ago
I was just following the parent's wording. I don't really think they were stupid, or even necessarily greedy and shameless though some no doubt have been. I think mostly it has been ignorance. Likewise the general voting populatio
17.
by vannevar 15d ago
It's possible that stupid people in government have helped lead to the "5 guys owning everything" though. The world we live in is a result of policy choices, not a natural inevitability. And the people we've put in offic
18.
by vannevar 24d ago
I don't think we disagree on Smith in general, I certainly never claimed that his approach was science. My point was simply that his "invisible hand" analogy has been extended way beyond its original expression in the book, b
19.
by vannevar 25d ago
>Isn't it obvious that Smith uses the sucked-out-of-thumbs claim (A) to "derive" claim (B) as a special case? No, it is not obvious. If the general claim were so important, why then focus on the specific case? >You simp
20.
by vannevar 25d ago
>> Sadly, economics is not yet a science, >Nor is there any visible attempt to make it a science. This will come as quite a surprise to the complexity theorists studying economics as a complex adaptive system. But you prove my poin
21.
by vannevar 26d ago
Sadly, economics is not yet a science, but still mostly a hodgepodge of philosophy, superstition, and politics, where the fragile beginnings of scientific inquiry and real science are regularly run over by louder, dumber voices shrieking ab
22.
by vannevar 29d ago
You had me at "this administration is a tool."
23.
by vannevar 29d ago
Perfect alignment is mathematically impossible, just as perfect security is mathematically impossible. Alignment is only as good as its assumptions. That doesn't make it irrelevant---if we could show that alignment would likely last as
24.
by vannevar 1mo ago
It's not all inflation expectations, either. The dollar has been strong lately due to elevated oil prices---countries that are short need extra dollars to buy oil, so they often liquidate treasuries to get them.
25.
by vannevar 1mo ago
People are not marrying chatbots, and these lawmakers just want to distract voters from the economic and political disasters unfolding before their eyes.
26.
by vannevar 1mo ago
>Contracting for more chips than you can make isn't a fun situation to find yourself in, nobody is doing it for profit (it's actually quite expensive in time, money, and reputation to litigate the fallout). This is true in the
27.
by vannevar 1mo ago
>You think after hundreds of years of economic study we don't have any sort of grasp on these absolute most basic concepts? Nonetheless, even after all these hundreds of years of economic study, companies still make mistakes (and oc
28.
by vannevar 1mo ago
This is a great question. Data center demand != AI demand. And chips sales at this point is driven by data center projects, not directly by AI demand.
29.
by vannevar 1mo ago
No one has claimed that. Only that there is a risk that semiconductor manufacturers will be incentivized to overcommit, resulting in collateral economic damage when they fail to deliver.
30.
by vannevar 1mo ago
Yes, it happens all the time. Sometimes it's actual fraud, sometimes it happens due to unforeseen supply chain issues. Sometimes it's a gray area in between, where production is possible but the supplier hides relevant risks in or

More ›