boulos

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conversations-with-tyl...

It was a bit towards the end, I think.

> Those expenditures may be approaching $1 trillion for 2025, while AI revenue—which would be used to pay for the use of AI infrastructure to run the software—will not exceed $30 billion this year

While it's clear that the author is summing up the spending from the big players, it's not clear to me that their math is right for revenue. Yes, OpenAI, Anthropic, Thinking Machines, SSI, etc. have pretty limited direct revenue (including zero!).

But this comparison assumes no revenue growth for other top computing users. Some companies are certainly saving money on some tasks and increasing revenue, particularly in fields like customer support. See the confusing figure in section 5 of https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/econo... .

That chart is by number of respondents and not weighted by revenue. Like the MIT study, it would not be surprising that "just pipe this to an LLM" isn't enough for most fields or companies. But a few have likely made material improvements.

10% of respondents saying they've seen a >10% revenue gain could be substantial, if they're bigger firms with high leverage in computing.

Edit to add: the comparison also makes a classic "GDP vs market cap" style mistake. Capital expenditure has multiple years of useful life. Revenue is annual. You'd want to compare depreciation vs revenue.

> Blue Owl Capital Inc. and Meta will split ownership of the Hyperion data center site in Richland Parish, Louisiana, with the tech giant retaining just 20% of it, according to people with knowledge of the matter. To finance the build-out, Morgan Stanley arranged over $27 billion of debt and about $2.5 billion of equity into a special purpose vehicle

At 225 over (current?) treasuries:

> The bonds priced at about 225 basis points over Treasuries,

> Riders will hail via the Waymo app, and as our service grows, riders will also be able to use the Lyft app to match with a Waymo vehicle.

(Disclosure: I work at Waymo, but not in partnerships)

For coal, the "started construction" number there isn't the same metric as began operation. You want to look for "commissioned" and you get 30 GW. From https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/when-coal-wont-ste...

> Note: In 2024, 66.7 GW of new coal power capacity was permitted, a decline from previous years but still above the subdued pace seen earlier in the year. New and revived coal power proposals totaled 68.9 GW, down from 117 GW in 2023 and 146 GW in 2022, indicating a potential slowdown in project initiation. Meanwhile, construction started on 94.5 GW of new coal capacity — the highest since 2015 — suggesting continued momentum in project development. However, the pace of new coal plants entering operation has been more moderate, with 30.5 GW commissioned so far in 2024, down from 49.8 GW last year but in line with 2021 and 2022 levels.

China is well positioned to do solar + storage, but a lot of that coal is probably (a) for base load, (b) for steel production and (c) to keep the coal miners in business. From the same write up:

> In 2024, more than 75% of newly approved coal power capacity was backed by coal mining companies or energy groups with coal mining operations, artificially driving up coal demand even when market fundamentals do not justify it.

It's still true that the pay and conditions were awful, but it was clearly something people chose to do.

That gives you 250 tops of fp8 for Spark.

People sometimes do it for free ("my son died, and this is the only photo I have") or for an agreed upon tip.

As reported at the time [1], the kids who didn't have a reservation knew there were reservations, but wanted to highlight that they didn't like the new system and the Mission was gentrifying:

> Kai told me that he had heard over the summer that pickup-soccer players were regularly being kicked off the field in the evening by adults who had paid to reserve the field through the city’s Recreation and Park Department. Having grown up playing soccer on that field, Kai decided to try to help the neighborhood kids make a stand for the existing rules. “I’ve also felt kind of exiled from the community, because of my eviction, and I didn’t want to see the same thing happening,” he said.

The Dropbox employees effectively took the blame for a Rec and Park policy that was (temporarily) changed in response [2].

So sure, they said something clumsy in a heated argument. But if they'd more politely said "The courts are reservable, why should it matter which neighborhood I'm from?" would you still be so angry at them?

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/dropbox-...

[2] https://abc7news.com/amp/tech-workers-mission-district-teens...

https://github.com/boostorg/boost_unordered_benchmarks/tree/... (Via a response from the boost authors in https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/yikfi4/boost_181_will_...) has more benchmarks depending on your pattern.

The early 2000s splatting from point-based rendering is what George Drettakis and his students realized could be applied in this new NeRF domain.

Basically, all the reasons that point splats didn't work for regular surface rendering nearly 25 years ago (holes, inefficient, can't edit them like meshes) are less of an issue in a light field capture setup.

SGI's decision to built out Itanium systems may have helped precipitate their own downfall. That was sad.

I'm surprised by the take that FTZ is worse than reassociation. FTZ being environmental rather than per instruction is certainly unfortunate, but that's true of rounding modes generally in x86. And I would argue that most programs are unprepared to handle subnormals anyway.

By contrast, reassociation definitely allows more optimization, but it also prohibits you from specifying the order precisely:

> Allow re-association of operands in series of floating-point operations. This violates the ISO C and C++ language standard by possibly changing computation result.

I haven't followed standards work in forever, but I imagine that the introduction of std::fma, gets people most of the benefit. That combined with something akin to volatile (if it actually worked) would probably be good enough for most people. Known, numerically sensitive code paths would be carefully written, while the rest of the code base can effectively be "meh, don't care".

> Gang leader Robert Sheldon Brown, known as “Casper” or “Cas,” from the Rollin’ 60s Neighborhood Crips, heard about the extraordinary pilfered sum, and decided it was time to get into the bank robbery game himself. And so, he turned his teenage gangbangers and corner boys into bank robbers — and he made sure they always brought their assault rifles with them.

> The FBI would soon credit Brown, along with his partner-in-crime, Donzell Lamar Thompson (aka “C-Dog”), for the massive rise in takeover robberies. (The duo ordered a total of 175 in the Southern California area.) Although Brown got locked up in 1993, according to Houlahan, his dream took hold — the takeover robbery became the crime of the era. News imagery of them even inspired filmmaker Michael Mann to make his iconic heist film, Heat, which, in turn, would inspire two L.A. bodybuilders to put down their dumbbells and take up outlaw life.

I can't tell from your GLSL if these would have forced FMAs for a lot of the intermediate product sums. That would probably be a non-trivial effect, particularly for your large anisotropy cases.

The Heckbert paper also describes the basic theory, but you would want to supplement with some of the offline rendering work that followed it. OpenImageIO (OIIO) is pretty widely used, and has gone through several iterations of bug fixing like https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/OpenImageIO/pul...

But for your purposes, you probably just need to find all the magic epsilons and sign checks to make it match.

(And TIL, this wasn't original to Kenny Rogers!)

As is, there was an attempted coup to overthrow the government due to the first (conditional) surrender.

At Oxide's scale, it would likely be hard to hide out in the way you're suggesting. It's a very technical sale, and probably any material deal is going to involve some discussion with someone beyond just a single sales rep.

Perhaps to bcantrill's point in the post though, I would suggest you reconsider the assumption that Sales people are purely coin operated. I'd love to hear from their reps directly, but as an example from my own experience, lots of the early Google Cloud sales folks were there because they hated how places like Oracle or Microsoft treated their customers. They were absolutely taking less peak pay, for what they felt was a better relationship.

Sales is fundamentally about relationships and trust in this kind of high-touch transaction. Badly behaving reps are pretty quickly outed, one way or another, though at big companies it can take a while to fire them.