dyslexit

That's helpful, but 2026 isn't cancelable, nor is at least half of 2027. Also, I think some of these numbers are off. Only SpaceX is cancelable but the above shows declines for years outside of the SpaceX commitment (assuming it does get cancelled, and in full).

I also left out AMD at $20B for 2027, so that would need to jump up.

Finally, the above is only counting the commitments they've already made. It's not very likely they'll only spend $10B in 2035.

You're right, SpaceX will be cancelable within 90 days after March 2027.

SpaceX was the only one mentioned as cancelable. These are listed under "Infrastructure Service Arrangements" on page 170.

To be more specific:

- 161.2B w/ Broadcom: 2026-2031

- 120.5B w/ SpaceX: 2026-2029

- 114.5B w/ Google: 2026-2033

- 110.0B w/ Amazon: 2026-2036

- 44.9B w/ Microsoft: 2026-2033

- 44.6B w/ Nscale: 2026-2033

- 41.3B w/ Lambda: 2026-2034

which is around $63.7 billion / year if spread over 10 years, but with most of it due earlier than that.

Wall Street Journal has reported this was ordered by Musk directly:

https://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-starlink-elon-musk-trump-d...

Not sure why so many people here are defending him as though his word is authoritative. The guy's as big a liar as Donald Trump.

You're making it sound like this is commonly practiced and a standard procedure for the DoD, yet according to Anthropic,

>Designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk would be an unprecedented action—one historically reserved for US adversaries, never before publicly applied to an American company.

Some very brief googling also confirmed this for me too.

>Everyone is fixated on the name of the rule (and to be fair: the administration is emphasizing that name for irritating rhetorical reasons), but if they called it the "DoD vendor exclusion list", it would be more accurate.

This statement misses the point. The political punishment to disallow all US agencies and gov contractors from using Anthropic for _any _ purpose, not just domestic spying, IS the retaliation, and is the very thing that's concerning. Calling it "DoD vendor exclusion list" or whatever other placating phrase or term doesn't change the action.

> This software dependency that Europe has on the USA is very, very bad - no just with regards to Zoom, but literally anything.

More to this point, the article points out that one of the drivers of all this is when Microsoft killed one of the emails an ICC prosecutor's email because the US administration sanctioned them:

> A decisive moment came last year when the Trump administration sanctioned the International Criminal Court’s top prosecutor after the tribunal, based in The Hague, Netherlands, issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an ally of President Donald Trump.

> The sanctions led Microsoft to cancel Khan’s ICC email, a move that was first reported by The Associated Press and sparked fears of a “kill switch” that Big Tech companies can use to turn off service at will.

I think you might have a different definition of "merit" than OP. "Merit" to me means how much value the company brings to society. If I'm reading correctly about your point of it being legal, to you it seems like "merit" means how much value they bring to their investors.

Social media companies becoming more consolidated and influential might be legal and good for their stakeholders but it doesn't mean it's a net positive for the rest of the world. And unfortunately, as much as so many people like to believe otherwise, being a net negative to society absolutely does not lead to a company becoming irrelevant.

The article also points out that some states and a lot cities require retailers to provide exact change. Congress would need to pass legislation to allow rounding nationally. I'm guessing in the meantime they'll continue holding pennies from previous years?

This is exactly what the article is arguing people are doing when betting on the Jesus thing:

> [Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.

...

> Has this galaxy-brained trade ever gone well? Yes! In late October of last year — a week before the election — Kamala Harris was trading around 0.3% in safe red states like Kentucky, while Donald Trump was trading around 0.3% in safe blue states like Massachusetts. On election day, these prices skyrocketed to about 1.5%, because “No” bettors desperately needed cash to place other bets on the election. Traders who bought “Yes” for 0.3% in late October and sold at 1.5% on election day made a 5x profit!

I'm pretty sure the comment was sarcastic. The grandparent comment was so over the top with its moral outrage that sarcasm feels like about the only appropriate response.

This opens the door for fully legalized bribery. Which is already happening. The SEC recently asked a judge to halt its own investigation into Justin Sun for fraud after he bought $75 million worth of Trump's WLF coin, $56 million of which went directly to Trump, immediately after the election. The case now will likely get dropped completely.

What's to stop foreign governments from doing the same thing, if they aren't already?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/02/sec-fraud-prose...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-26/justin-su...

The only reason he tried to get out of it was because tech stocks tanked shortly after the bid and he knew he could have gotten it for far cheaper than the $44B. The entire time it was happening I was convinced that if he could get out of the bid he would immediately make another one for around $30B and still buy his favorite addiction. People like him and their motivations aren't that hard to read.

He wasn't _forced_ to buy anything. He was forced to pay what he promised for it.

I wonder if this effect can be explained by the we form the "bouba"/"kiki" sounds when we speak them. "Kiki" has a sharper enunciation when using your tongue and mouth to form it, while "bouba" feels more like an open round one.

As I said, it means parents who don't want their young children seeing porn (whether you agree with them or not) would no longer be able to let their children use SD. I'm not making a statement on what our society should or shouldn't allow, I'm pointing out what _is currently_ the standard in the United States and many other, more socially conservative, countries. SD would become more heavily regulated, an 18+ tool in the US, and potentially banned in other countries.

You can have your own opinion on it, but surely you can see the issue here?

This question narrows the scope of "safety" to something less than what the people at SD or even probably what OP cares about. _Non-random_ CSAM requests targeting potentially real people is the obvious answer here, but even non-CSAM sexual content is also a probably a threat. I can understand frustration with it currently going overboard on blurring, but removing safety checks altogether would result in SD mainly being associated with porn pretty quickly, which I'm sure Stability AI wants to avoid for the safety of their company.

Add to that, parents who want to avoid having their kids generate sexual content would now need to prevent their kids from using this tool because it can create it randomly, limiting SD usage to kids 18+ (which is probably something else Stability AI does not want to deal with.)

It's definitely a balance between going overboard and having restrictions though. I haven't used SD in several months now so I'm not sure where that balance is right now.

I don't know, but even if I did you're making a weak argument. You're comparing temporary pain relief for lost and destroyed lives.

> The harm to society of people who need them not getting pain drugs far outweighs the pain to society of those who don’t need them abusing them.

How do you measure that? Opioid overdoses accounted for at least 72,800 deaths last year [0] and there are countless more addicts out there whose entire lives are ruined because of that addiction. Many of those people, if they ever recover, will never take opioids again for any real medical pain relief like you did for your wisdom teeth because of the very real risk of relapse. Additionally, opioid withdrawal is, according to almost everyone who's gone through it, is one of the worst experiences you can feel.

I'm not taking the side that it definitely doesn't outwheigh the need of those who genuinely need them. On the whole I actually probably agree with that. But stating that so confidently and ignoring the very real pain, lost lives, and broken families caused by opioid addiction because you had your wisdom teeth pulled and wanted opioids feels pretty dismissive and not a serious argument.

[0]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a4.htm

The incidence rate is per year and the study was over an average of 32 years per patient. At that rate you'd expect around 105 incidents instead of 4, although there are other considerations like age to take into account.

You can argue whether or not Palestinians deserve the response, but what makes you think Hamas does not represent Palestinians? A recent poll by the Arab World for Research and Development shows that 75% of Palestinians support both the October 7th attacks and Hamas's vision of a single, Palestinian-only state. And Hamas's vision to achieve this state is actual, literal genocide.

For what purpose? Do we know what this is used for?

Unfortunately for the rest of the world climate change doesn't wait to see what a Congress hamstrung by one political party that denies its very existence is going to do. That change has no political reality of coming from that branch, neither now not in any reasonable future that's going to matter.

> The narrative has evolved to suit the deficiencies of the vaccine and keep profits from sinking.

The narrative may have evolved but that was more due to the virus evolving rather than some conspiracy driven by Pfizer and Moderna to sell more shots. More people being vaccinated benefits everyone, not just the pharmaceutical companies, and saying otherwise is a bit paranoid.

> Forest Service agents also measured and recorded data about the tire tread pattern left by Maynard's car — evidence that they say ties him to a string of arson wildfires.

That's linking his car to the fire. That's from the article, I'm sure the affidavit itself has more.

You're talking about a different feature. Google can screen an unknown call with an automated message asking them to leave their name and why they're calling before giving the user the option to pick up.

It has value as a currency on dark markets and possibly for companies paying hackers off to disable ransomware. I can't really think of why people would use it instead of fiat for something like a Tesla though.

I'm not sure how this can be broken down any more clearly. The customer is always losing money when they ask for a refund if they pay for the Tesla with BTC unless the price of BTC is exactly the same as it was when the purchase is made. Tesla chooses whether it pays the customer back in BTC or USD. It's pretty clear language. There's nothing that tptacek said that is wrong.

It is what the clause says, you cut it off just before they say it.

> If you are entitled to a refund of your payment or to a buyback, we reserve the right to refund to you either the exact Bitcoin Price that you provided to us at the time of purchase or an amount of US Dollars that is equivalent to the US Dollar price of the product that you purchased, at our sole and absolute discretion, taking into consideration operational efficiency.

Why is this a terrible take? The majority of this short article focuses specifically on the refunds, while you're focusing on the part about missing out rising BTC* price. That's where Tesla has only upside and the customer only downside, which is a pretty valid take.

You don't get your USD equivalent back if they pay you back in depreciated BTC.

The part you're quoting has nothing to do with violence. He's saying most white moderates preferred an absence of tension with black people to an absence of equality. Unless there's something else you wanted to quote it seems like you're grossly misinterpreting what was said so you can call it "advocating political violence" and equate it to what was shared leading up.to the capitol hill riots.