> To Nvidia the biggest threat is a capex cut from big tech
Not the biggest. Maybe top 3.
The bigger issue right now is data center expansion speed. You have SpaceX turning up random generators and doing whatever to get it over the line but that's the exception. There are likely stockpiles of GPUs and racks of AI clusters waiting to go online. It's only going to get worse.
It doesn't matter anymore. Nvidia's core product isn't "GPUs" anymore. It's a whole AI rack. AMD also announced their own of the same. CPU, GPU, network, etc is all bundled.
> For me, not using the best model is a huge opportunity cost since my company can afford I
But sometimes not using the "best model" is using the best model. Fable isn't the best at everything. Specialization and optimizations might not just be around cost.
There's no irony. The problem is these generalizations and labelling that's hurting everyone. It's the wrong way to view China and maybe many other places.
Just like the definition of AI, the definition of democratic or not evolved long ago.
I would prefer they confirm before closing. It's AI / bot anyway. Instead it's just mass keyword zig = close. The bug can still exist post-port. None of it got "fact-checked".
In fact a lot of "feature requests" like npm compatibility related or missing specs etc ALL also got closed for being "zig" because reproduction and suggested solution were of course zig.
They're drowning in debt and risk is increasing. If these US models don't keep holding up their valuation will tank further and some will recall the loans or ask for different terms.
It's a different thing altogether. ASML builds "machines" and TSMC uses these "machines" to build "factories".
That's the simplified view and saying they will do "factories" is how they are winning the headlines. It's what people understand like factory = jobs impression.
> Why is it a big deal? Nvidia invested $2b into CoreWeave for 9% equity stake.
Depends if they actually got the $2b in real money. There's a difference.
It's a big deal if no money was involved. Nothing even entered the company directly. Some deals have structured with Special Purpose Vehicles where money goes to the SPV. The SPV buys GPUs with it (from Nvidia). GPUs is loaned back to the company involved. So this company is stuck with this GPU rental, which may or may not be what they want and not $2b.
This sounds like a bad deal? So Nvidia had to sweeten the deal and promise min utilization on those GPUs by renting it themselves even if they don't need it.
> If they'd just put the date in the version field, people would know how old the software is
Does it tell you anything? If this "software" just bumps the date and never provides anything meaningful it is useful to you? It's about the substance.
> doesn't tell you whether Java 27 is old or new. "Java 26.1: What's New?" would
How does 26.1 tell you that? Because you "assume" it is a date? It also still doesn't? How do you know the new 1 isn't 26.100?
> Traditional software versioning helps in the first case: they bump version after a big event
They pretend to. It's given most developers headaches in terms of you have to have something to bump the version so either they make something up or never do it and so fails your test either way.
At the end of the day either:
You care: a quick check won't hurt. It's twice a year.
Not the biggest. Maybe top 3.
The bigger issue right now is data center expansion speed. You have SpaceX turning up random generators and doing whatever to get it over the line but that's the exception. There are likely stockpiles of GPUs and racks of AI clusters waiting to go online. It's only going to get worse.