Trident 2 (article says used 8 of these chips), and google says around 400-424 made, so easily would have soaked up 4000 of these CPUs with spares alone. So if anything, the production run seems light.
I read they had their own fab, so the minimum production run aspect would appear moot.
That number was probably shaped by minimum production-run requirements, alongside the need for software development units, along with other factors, like the use in Trident II and other quests we may not know about.
Process-intensive, but higher compression has clear strategic value. Distant satellites such as Voyager, where bandwidth is severely limited, could transmit more data using such capabilities. Equally, for long-term archival storage, improved compression would allow far greater volumes of data to be preserved on durable, life-long media formats.
As it is, scalpers/bots have been cashing in for a while, coining it from cashed-up people, so flipping that would make sense by a company and taking advantage of that to help reduce/fund a lower price down the line quicker.
Another way would be to auction of X amount of units, then those with cash can pay through the nose directly and again, the company gains and by that, so do normal consumers on a breadline, as it would help reduce the cost quicker down the line for the rest of the purchasers.
Interesting, as it sounds like a lottery reservation system, which is kinda a neat way to deal with many issues.
I'm always supprised that companies don't do a tiered price release, offer it at 200% price, you get it, 150%, you lower down the list and then 100% lottery time, that way they gain from those who can afford to pay more(maybe able to subsidise other sales later and price cuts down the line). Why feed scalpers when you can coin it directly and then offer a lower price to those who are prepared to wait a few more months or so.
They produce drugs whose patents have expired; drugs still under patent are something they mostly avoid. The term for 3rd party versions of these drugs are often referred to as `generics`, which sees the same drug, but a different name(names also have copyrights that seem to extend longer).
However, if they can tweak the drug and make it something that escapes the patent and still works then good for them and everyone else. Though mindful large pharma is rather tight and lawyer-heavy when it comes to protecting their IP.
As of now it is under patent that expires in 2032, and also not FDA approved, so with how long that process takes, either way, wont see it available anytime soon in drug regulated countries. But grey imports/black market trade in pharma drugs is not to be overlooked.
Saw this and does seem the screen tipped the balance here, which is understandable. Maybe if framework had a better screen without the touch overheads as an option(which I'm sure they could do being modular and upgradable)
All set for a perfect storm with a single exploit down the line. Which could take out so much and OpenAI with it. What a way to burst the bubble, not an if, more a when as so many eggs in that basket and they have yet to invent a solid lid.
I contracted for ICL around the time it was acquired by Fujitsu, working opposite the Post Office developers, some of whom were still learning C++ as they went.
I later worked at the Department of Health during the Blair-era restructuring, when management layers multiplied, Trust structures became increasingly fragmented, and PFI debt created long-term financial drag. I also encountered someone trying to sell internal documents, which says plenty about the governance culture at the time.
Then I saw the BBC go through outsourcing to Fujitsu, with assets sold off and then effectively contracted back.
Across utilities, government, healthcare and broadcasting, the pattern has been depressingly consistent: short-term accounting savings, long-term operational debt, and layers of complexity presented as reform. Problems are rarely solved. They are moved around, rebranded, outsourced, and made to look resolved until the next team inherits the consequences.
Capgemini, Fujitsu and the usual suspects do well out of it. The public sector gets another five-year spreadsheet win, while the real-world cost lands years later with someone else.
All rather depressing when you see it first hand and many stories I dare not tell, from Ministers and their `shadows`(what their assistants called), upper goverment stories and even from infosec days involving banks and financial intertutions and how links that should never be there were found. Networks connected by undocumented lines and other things that just make you go WTF at levels of disbelief, even No.10 dealings that again, best left unspoken.
Just a system that focuses on being seen to care, over actually careing and if you do care, you are either broken or scared for life.
Oh well, be another decade or two to unpick the debt bombing this time around and those that cause it, never held to account as seagull managment is now the norm in many walks of life along with doing little waiting for pensions with pension surfing. This that care, die, those who don't get promoted on lies.
I will write a book to be published when i'm gone(soon) and just not care then, until then, I care, just wished those with power actually did.
Good article. I particularly like the line, "early exposure to experts reduces delusional confidence", which is very true. It helps prevent a flawed Occam’s razor mindset, where people mistake the simplest visible explanation for the correct one.
Though probably not the best title as more about "Mount Stupid", than Dunning-Kruger.
Does feel like OpenAI are on a - too the moon or bust direction currently and equally does also feel they are too big to go bust as if they wobble, the enture stack of bubbles colapse to the stage that the fallout would be greater than the sum of one company.
Fun times, but then, never a dull moment in this industry.
Sora was a loss-loss-leader to a loss-leader product with added liability exposure ontop. Was wise to bail on it as the resource demands are crazy for video gen with AI, and to get longer clips, you need more and more memory. Upside is, they might have some IP they can leveridge down the line, or liscence the product to others.
UK been a mess enegy wise for a while as we rushed towards netzero when we should of been more tortise, that saw the UK see where we were and where we wanted to be and go in a straight line like a roman road,but no concept of bridges or tunnels, that made the direction more bumpy than it could have been and far less impacting overall. There again, good example would be the mad rush done when they rushed to replace incadecent bulbs under Regulation EC 244/2009 with CFC bulbs chucked endless money to pat themselves on the back with LED taking over a few years later, sending those rushed replacement to landfill - which of note, if you broke one, you literly have to evac your house and air for a while due to the mecury in them. As I said, many good intentions are rushed like a hare when we all know the tortise wins the race.
"In 2024, Bluesky submitted 1,154 reports for confirmed CSAM to the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Reports consist of the account details, along with manually reviewed media by one of our specialized child safety moderators. Each report can involve many pieces of media, though most reports involve under five pieces of media."
The Huawei ban in the European Union (EU) has been a gradual, uneven process, shifting from voluntary guidelines in 2020 to increasingly mandatory, country-specific, and EU-wide restrictions by 2025–2026.
Here is the timeline of Huawei's ban and restrictions in the EU and UK:
Phase 1: Initial Restrictions and Voluntary Guidelines (2019–2020)
May 2019: The United States places Huawei on a trade blacklist, restricting access to key technologies (Google Android, US chips), which triggers security reviews across Europe.
January 2020: The European Commission launches its "5G Security Toolbox," encouraging EU member states to restrict or exclude "high-risk vendors" (HRV) like Huawei from critical core network infrastructure.
July 2020 (UK): The UK government announces a total ban on buying new Huawei 5G equipment after December 31, 2020, and orders the removal of all existing Huawei 5G gear by 2027.
October 2020 (Sweden): Sweden bans Huawei and ZTE from 5G networks and orders the removal of existing equipment by January 2025.
Phase 2: Implementation Hurdles (2021–2023)
2021-2022: Many EU nations slow-walk the implementation of the 5G toolbox, with only a small number of countries actively banning Huawei from core networks due to costs and dependence on its technology.
June 2023: EU officials express frustration that only one-third of EU countries have implemented restrictions on high-risk vendors.
Phase 3: Hardening Stance and National Bans (2024–2025)
July 2024 (Germany): After years of delays, Germany announces an agreement with major operators to remove Huawei and ZTE critical components from 5G core networks by the end of 2026, and from access/transport networks by 2029.
August 2025 (Spain): Spain cancels a government contract with Telefonica involving Huawei equipment.
November 2025 (EU-wide): The European Commission pushes for a binding, mandatory ban, threatening to make the 2020 voluntary guidelines legally required for all member states.
Phase 4: Proposed Mandatory EU-Wide Ban (2026)
January 20, 2026: The European Commission unveils a new proposal aimed at forcing EU member states to remove Huawei and ZTE from their networks within three years of adoption.
January 2026: Reports indicate the EU may move to ban Huawei and ZTE from critical infrastructure, including fixed-line and fiber networks, not just 5G.
Summary of Key Country Timelines
UK: New equipment banned (Dec 2020), full removal by 2027.
Sweden: Full 5G ban, removal by Jan 2025.
Germany: Core removal by end of 2026, RAN removal by 2029.
EU (General): Proposed 3-year mandatory phase-out starting from 2026
Must say, tech that has held up for all that time, must be doing something right.
So this cloud ride, the possibility of a whole new paradigm in computing could happen before we see EU cloud centricity.
Wouldn't such a rumour make people think that if they brought Tesla shares, they could get a share of SpaceX if they merge, given their public stock and the later two are not.
So such reports, in such situations, will be interesting if it has an impact on Tesla shares. Which could trigger an investigation.