socialcommenter

Can just require that all ride shares have mechanical door handles

Are there mandatory safety briefings when you climb in your Uber?

Person A has leverage, and every $1000 sale makes his share price $10000 higher, more than compensating for the $100 in taxes.

Person B owns shares in Person A.

> eru

Tolkien fan?

If the pricing is fair and at arms' length. What's happening in reality is as if they are mowing each others' lawns at wink wink nudge nudge $1000. Not a good proxy for actual value created.

@dang could you explain why this is flagged please?

The influential figure at the center of the AI boom makes an inflammatory & consequential statement like this, we should be encouraging a balanced discussion rather than sweeping it under the rug.

It doesn't appear that Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. want to talk about this either.

Is it only a 10% annual return? That's not a lot.

And the typical book only sees 1 copy sold?

In a just world, the punishment can be more than just the sum of the direct damages, otherwise there's no incentive to stop reoffending.

Anthropic (and friends) proved they're willing to do obviously illegal things, and it didn't end them. Why do we think they stopped after doing it once?

> Maintainer exhaustion is totally a secondary effect, not intended.

Malice, incompetence, etc. My question is, how much does it matter _why_ the problem exists because of AI/is being exacerbated by AI?

Kelley's blog post reads as follows:

> The post implies you were diligently fuzzing your Zig code, while during our calls the Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything.

That's not compatible with saying that Kelley made the misleading claims. Bun told him they were not fuzzing. If they brought receipts later that indicate they lied, what should we be left to believe?

It's crazy that people have to eat the long payback time to switch to renewable, while these wildly profitable (maybe?) data centers can just drink excessively from the grid or switch on natural gas turbines, and skip the lead times/upfront costs.

If they're so productive, make them eat the cost and lead time so we can all have a cheap, functional electricity grid. It would be so easy to mandate no new data centres unless they can procure their own renewable sources of electricity.

I'm not the commenter claiming that this currently violates GAAP - that's someone else.

To summarise my opinion, subjectively it seems like a better distinction could be made in GAAP to look through this agreement and others like it. (Hypothetically if Hertz agreed to rent back rather than repurchase, like mentioned in a previous comment, that would also be suspect). But I'm not the one to propose what the preconditions would be.

> Looking at the structure of the deal and analyzing the risks is perfectly valid. Screaming "accounting subterfuge!" when this is simple GAAP accounting is a different matter.

It can be legal and still be subterfuge. Everyone involved in the deal has a clear incentive to ensure Coreweave gets to recognise revenue, and gets to show growth on paper. It's the same reason why SoftBank paying OpenAI $800mln for services in 2025 stinks a bit - they don't need the services but the deal goes ahead anyway.

> This simply isn't true. Google "DGX Cloud". Nvidia has a real business selling cloud-based compute for training foundation models and running heavy AI workloads, and leasing compute from its hyperscaler chip customers instead of competing with them was a strategic decision Nvidia made.

Sorry - you're entirely correct here. Though remember we're talking about a scenario where Coreweave aren't able to sell their capacity. If there's such a dramatic hole in demand, who are NVIDIA selling their compute to? This repo agreement won't give NVIDIA capacity that they need in the 90% of cases but will force them to purchase capacity they won't need in the 10%.

s/10%/some other probability/

> there's no accounting issue here

This seems like a really narrow interpretation of what's going on. Is there any room to doubt/discuss whether GAAP rules could be improved? Or why the deal has been structured this way?

Why shouldn't we look through this arrangement? NVIDIA isn't in the business of purchasing outsourced GPU time. They could make better use of unused GPUs by repurchasing them for resale to another customer. If they're not doing that, it already seems likely that they specifically did this to guarantee that the revenue could be recognised.

Sure, NVIDIA's risk exposure could (legally) sit on their books without being recognised until it's already too late. That doesn't mean we shouldn't scrutinize them.