lostmsu

MSFT alone is 4T and is probably at least 75% income-from-software.

If either of AI companies "solves software" (does not look improbable rn) ahead of all others, that would defend ~3T valuation right away.

And that's just software.

> That's not really a great investment thesis, unless you're drunk on the hype.

To be fair it is very visibly getting better basically nonstop in the last 2 years at least.

> Chinese models trained with millions

I see you are still under illusion that Chinese models are trained with millions.

The top models still require 1T+ of VRAM. Even if prices go down, that's still gonna be very unaffordable.

I expect people here to root for the future. In the future AI overtaking humans is inevitable.

The ordeal feels like 2yo who hasn't learned yet that the pee will come no matter if he wishes to play or not.

Maybe than Google Search, but not than the Internet.

My Titan Vs that were running non-stop since 2019 for 4 years and then on and off until mid this year exhibit no signs of any kind of issues. I just sold both because they don't have enough VRAM for LLMs.

4x3090s bought in 2021 also still work flawlessly (although they were permacapped at 250W to avoid fan noise).

Well duh, they don't have competitive AI accelerators.

More puzzling is the sale of other stocks that actually do.

msedit ftw

Honestly after VSCode ate a good chunk of vim and emacs users I am not sure why something with similar UX but in terminal is not the standard yet in every *nix. Talk about sunken cost fallacy.

Probably will be UTO

Not under the circumstances IMO

I referred to indirect ownership through owning stakes in the private investment fund(s) that owns their own practice.

Because the article is trash ragebait

> private equitization of dental offices

Owned in the end by the very same dentists, no?

The point it does "apply the same". And sometimes it doesn't apply, but it doesn't apply "the same" between Google and avg Elias - at least as far as I can see.