HN user
I wish the performance , achievements , honour , praise , and disdain we hold for people would be evaluated based on this instead of PR and Puff pieces.
Sure there will always be subjective differences , but a lot of negative impacts on this planet can be attributed to the distortion of actual merit and the distorted proportion of what should be correctly attributed to one individual .
I love this observation and this thread in general.
Depends on the fine print of the deal. My guess is that it is very favourable for Anthropic. SpaceX very eager for headline news before IPO.
Here is my take:
- roughly 1B revenue per month is a good look for SpaceX - provides some credibility to otherwise non-existent xAi business.
- pos. News for Google due to their share in SpaceX.
- can be interpreted as leasing versus building for Google, a nice Hedge on compute capacity.
- saves Capex for Google at time of horrendous GPU, memory costs.
It is only a bridge until 2029. What will be the value of the SpaceX data centers by then? Fine print matters on deal with Google. MS made billions up front payments to Coreweave. SpaceX has no upfront payments, has to stem Capex alone. Very favourable for Anthropic and Google.
Provider Compute Sold Valuation
-------- ------------ ---------
Nebius ~$46.4B ~$55.3B
CoreWeave $99.4B ~$55.8B
SpaceX ~$70+B ?Why would it have been better to turn back on the nuclear plant? What would be the specific advantages of nuclear plant back in operation versus battery project realisation? Or would battery + reactivated plant be the best overall solution?
I am looking for additional best practices regarding the development of data and ML based products. Would be grateful for any pointers in this direction.
This seems indeed anecdotal.
I would consider a blood test every couple of years a default practice among GPs in Switzerland. Among other measures that fall under the "prevention is better than treatment" scheme such as free skin cancer screening or colon cancer screening from a certain age.
I find the described reaction of your doctor to be out of the ordinary, and with relation to the described accusation unacceptable.
I would have switched GP in that case.
As far as I know, they did not communicate an overall strategy or comprehensive action plan. The basis of this thread are a series of tweets making assumptions about what the government strategy could be (given a lack of measures taken as a basis).
I do not understand how not communicating a comprehensive action plan is meant to be the harder choice ("a decision many other countries [...] not able to make") when contrasted with messures such as declaring national emergencies and widespread lockdowns of public life.
The lockdown as implemented by Italy and France aims at slowing down the spreading of the virus. It is not meant as a strategy to overcome the virus. It is meant to flatten the curve of the exponential growth of infection to minimize overloading the health system and to provide more time for preparation and for the acquisition of best practices regarding the situation. There is no disillusion that this might somehow stop the virus. The expected total infected percentage of population, with lockdowns is still in the range of 50-60%. Italy went into lockdown on March 9th when # of new cases reached 1791 and total deaths was 463. This does not seem to qualify as a very drastic early lockdown, as stated by parent.
Given everything we know regarding exponential spread, the high percentage of cases requiring icu treatment, and the mortality rate, I fail to see how the absence of any measures to mitigate the spreading of the virus makes sense.
The assumption that there are only two viable strategies, lockdown & no measures, is a plain wrong oversimplification. There is a wide range of intermediary steps that can be taken in between to attempt to slow down the virus.
Attempting to minimize the degree of overload on the health system by applying such measures in a coordinated fashion is meant to reduce casualties caused by system overload.