HN user
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/tswaugh; my proof: https://keybase.io/tswaugh/sigs/r8gvFEWW4PGsNVwDzVbL9XF8kfIL3wRD41oq7k48q24 ]
They're pretty specific to the datacenter use case with no outputs and they need to be cooled externally, principally through the very loud high speed fans used in data centers. I suppose you could strap a fan to one and put it in a normal case or maybe make a dedicated after market cooler (like the water blocks made for water cooling cases).
The big question becomes, does a Steam Deck owner buy enough more to make up the subsidy or do they buy about the same as they would have without buying the Deck? For consoles there's little question because the console maker gets a cut of every single sale and it would be REALLY weird to only play previous generation games on a console so that math is easier but for Steam they're looking at people buying it as a secondary device (mostly) as an augment to their existing PC(s).
I also think Valve has/had enough demand at the non fully subsidized price there wasn't much point in selling it for less. They could already sell as many as they wanted to make at the $600+ price point so why subsidize if farther and leave money on the table? That has changed now that they're having to jack the prices up but I think they also just don't want to get into that model and would rather have an ecosystem of healthy competitors they sell games onto.
A lot of the competitors have had to raise prices too, Legion Go 2 is now nearly 2 grand for the Z2 Extreme version. It's hard to do a loss leader model in the PC space because they're not guaranteed money on the backend from game purchases. Even Steam can't really count on it because even though they're the main vendor people will use their existing Steam library in a lot of cases.
It's not just the weight some outside groups have done the calculations and to dissipate the heat at the operating temperatures in the white paper without a heat pump to increase the radiator temp and thus efficiency requires a massive pump that would have to move nearly 69,000 kg of coolant per second continuously without fail.
I kind of get it but it's the only point when money enters the books directly from the short sale and after that they're free to do whatever they want with it.
They're not really making any money when they close out their short position. The money came when they first opened the short position and sold the shares. When they close they just lock in how much they're going to net off the position.
You're missing the cost to borrow on the stock which is a daily fee to continue borrowing the stock.
They're selling a borrowed stock, so any buyer on the market when you open the short position is where the money comes from. Short sellers get the money immediately and then pay fees to the people they borrowed from until they close the short position.
Aw man I was hoping to punk my manager but our cost estimates are unaffected.
No, I can do both but absorb much better when I internal monologue it but can read much faster when I don't. Some people don't internal monologue it at all.
If you're in the market for another "wait I thought everyone did it X way?!" surprise look up aphantasia where some percentage of people can't mentally "picture" items and there's a whole spectrum of vividness. I've yet to find someone not surprised by this no matter where they are on the spectrum.
I had completely forgotten they'd already wrapped xAI around Twitter. That's getting to turducken levels of nested bad companies.
There's also the Tesla (potential) self dealing where SpaceX bought a bunch of Cybertrucks and appears to be leasing them to employees for cheap as a perk.
Part of it is the index percentage is tuned to the available shares so it didn't create an apocalyptic buying pressure. Plus he only got the Nasdaq to modify their rules which also tamped down the pop.
As for timing there's no universal answer, stock changes are usually announced a few trading days before it's effective so funds can use that time to perform their rebalances. I presume most of the funds that needed to start tracking SPCX started buying pretty early so they were properly balanced on the day it took effect it might have even been part of the initial pop though they could have also waited for the first tranches of insider shares that were released (I think there were some relatively early releases as part of the IPO?).
Part of the reason for the long window before inclusion is so that the price is reasonably stable and the market has had a chance to do it's whole price discovery dance for a little while before index funds etc are forced to buy in. Part of Musks goal with lobbying for early inclusion was to prop up the price by requiring the index funds to buy and hold his stock which gives a larger market for the insiders to sell in to. He wanted to unlock that giant pool of passive investment without having to wait like everyone else had to and prove profitability over multiple quarters.
Yeah that plus wrapping the xAI dogshit debt inside SpaceX is where it gets really scummy. At least the S&P500 didn't (yet) succumb and lower their requirements and that's where most of my investment money is parked.
A news org I see a valid reason for keeping two classes of stock I guess. It feels slimy elsewhere without that some editorial independence justification.
The BRK A and B are slightly different in that A is worth 1500 B but B only has 1/10000 of a vote so it IS a somewhat lopsided value vs voting share but not as bad as the 0 vote SPCX shares that just got dumped on the market.
Google is also pretty new in the terms I was talking about only slightly older than Facebook. I mean going back to the 80s/90s or earlier, pre current FAANG at least.
Are super shares like Zuckerberg's and Musk a new thing? Genuinely curious if they're a recent invention or something that's quietly happened for a while because it seems like a large inversion of the deal of going public, lose some control of the company in exchange for a large amount of cash but these nonvoting/supervoting share splits seem to completely upend what I understood to be part of the deal for access to the stock market.
It's not completely out of line with other RPi sources listed on the RPi Foundation's own site. It's the same price as Adafruit for example but about $50 more than Mirco Center (though that is for instore pickup only so only for people lucky enough to live close to one).
I thought that might just be Amazon resellers capitalizing on marks being too lazy to go off site at first when they were $280 at Microcenter (still crazy expensive). [0] Then Adafruit had them for the same $350! [1] And it really does seem to be driven by the ram too the 4 GB model is only $130 (or $104 at MC).
[0] https://www.microcenter.com/product/702590/raspberry-pi-5?rd...
Prices have gone a little insane in the last year though too to be fair to them.
It's not actually that many people in the grand scheme at ~1.1 million according to the CRS, but it is spread out very effectively so that massive cuts can be directly felt by any chosen House representative or senator. It's partially a capacity preservation system as well, for defense a nation wants to be able to produce a significant portion of it's military hardware needs in a war domestically and you need to keep those industries alive somehow against cheaper foreign producers so you have the Berry Amendment that requires clothing etc purchased by the DoD to only use US made materials.
I mean as a solution for high PFAS levels simply drawing blood and throwing it away would also work just fine too. Also the levels in the blood the recipient receives would be diluted by their own blood too unless they were getting a lot of PFAS'd blood often.
It's not good data for any particular procedure because he's doing so many at the same time so you can't really use the data to support any particular procedure in a rigorous way.
No he takes blood transfusions from his son along with a lot of other questionable procedures and supplements. No one really knows why he developed this problem and it's pretty common but in association with so many exotic medical procedures it's spawned a lot of assumptions about the cause.
He's also one of the more bizarre publicly, with him using his son as a blood bag. Not unique but the publicity of it was a bit unusual.
That was definitely the last time the US got particularly close to a deal with North Korea that would limit it's nuclear ambitions but in a very Trump-like fashion (though to be fair this is very common) Bush came in claiming he could get a better deal and ultimately got basically nothing.
One funny side event to all this was when North Korea accidentally (?) revealed their secret uranium enrichment program when providing records from their Yongbyon reactor. They claimed at the time they didn't have a uranium enrichment program but there were traces of HEU on the records provided along with some aluminum tube samples and that scuppered the talks in 2008.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-21-fg-korea...
Their main security comes from the viable threat of nuclear retaliation and the conventional artillery pointed at SK's capital city along with the lack of desire by SK to integrate and modernize NK in a hypothetical post war state.
That's out of date, they can nominally reach the US mainland now with nuclear payloads. Accuracy and reliability are somewhat questionable but it's a huge gamble.
There's still a large difference in the danger posed between an Iraq stationing and NK even as a generic tourist. You're much more at risk of angering the locals and becoming a political token if something should happen while you were there in NK but unless they were there before the US invasion there's a lot bigger threat of non-government groups attacking you in Iraq.