segfaultex

Sure, if you ignore all RnD costs. If you don't; they were $80B in the hole the first half of 2026.

And scaled to an annual burn rate more than double that in 5 years...

$80B ARR with an ~$160B net loss.

$1.3T is still looney tunes for a company that literally has zero plan to turn a profit.

To what extent is that demand from frontier labs? Purportedly, Anthropic is a significant chunk of GCP rev.

How much runway will the creditors give those labs until they expect a ROI?

The financial underpinning the AI build out make zero sense, but we've seen the market remain irrational for long periods of time.

They're a great used buy. I get ~315 miles out of mine with mostly highway driving. Paid $45K for a platinum.

It’s supply constrained for now, the moment companies like Anthropic have to switch to profit-making-mode, demand will dip as the prices skyrocket imo.

Yeah and the production numbers from the start seemed to indicate that Apple knew it wouldn't be extremely popular.

FWIW, I bought one knowing this, and have zero regrets. Amazing hardware, it's the best personal display on the market. I use it for the majority of my movie watching.

Yeah, I think what gets lost in the corporate AI convo is that it accelerates impact; for better and worse.

>Who in his right mind would like to dive in super complex browser internals?

I would have loved this in college. I know most don't, but I think we'll hit a point where the people who don't know enough to assess when model output is sub-par will fall by the wayside.

I'm not arrogant enough to think that I won't be included in this blast radius, so I try to dig as deeply as I can whenever possible (and where it makes sense,IE: I couldn't tell you all of the details of LLVM or hypervisor internals)

I wouldn't, the A380 is designed to fly with just one operational engine.

With open-weight models getting closer and closer to parity with frontier models for specific tasks (coding,etc) the frontier labs are trying to make moats via their software.

Personally, this is why I foresee Anthropic/OpenAI/Google taking a bath once their creditors come calling. I think the individuals most attached to a specific app are the ones least willing to pay the true cost of inference. (IE: your grandma using chatgpt to ask for recipe recommendations probably isn't going to pay $400/mo).

BYD sure, but I have serious long-term doubts about teslas ability to capture any significant market share. They’ve dropped to their lowest level in the US since ~2017 and frankly their products are awful.

We just bought an EV last year and tried everyone. The teslas were the second worst in our opinion. The worst were the rivian products, just horrible UX, poor engineering, poor assembly, clear rent-seeking behavior, etc.

BMW, Ford, and GM make better vehicles and better EVs.

The overwhelming majority of local businesses around me don't have websites, just a FB page. If you want to look at upcoming events, specials, restaurant menus, etc. you either have to hope FB doesn't throw up the "you need an acct to see this page" blocker, or sign up.

You think making the biggest breakthrough in battery tech is easier than monetary incentives?

>The native integration knows about car's battery state all the time and auto-suggests stops.

CarPlay does this on my F150 Lightning. It manages state, preconditioning when routing to a charging stop, will suggest charging stops as I'm routing, etc. etc.

There's really nothing special about GM's implementation IMO, except that they charge you monthly to access it.

We bought an F150 Lightning instead of a Sierra EV mainly because of this. I'm not interested in 'cars as a service'.

Deleted mine months ago. Altman is one of the slimiest tech ceos out there, which is saying something.

Yes. I see it hallucinate method names for 3rd party libraries constantly.

It’s useful, but when users here say they’re vibe coding 98% of their work, I have to think they’re not working on anything complex.

Conversely, I have yet to see agentic coding tools produce anything I’d be willing to ship.

If I had to bet; they'll put their 3.7L V6 in and run it on the miller cycle with a fixed drive to hit @130+kW or so.

The changes for cooling, etc. will be substantial, but the problem space is already well-known by the team, so the time to market probably won't be as long as we think.

Also bought a Lightning. I use it for plenty of truck related things that don't involve towing and it's great. I like to target shoot on family farm land, and it's awesome to toss my steel targets and equipment in the bed and offroad to the area I shoot on (there's an area pretty far in with a sharp elevation change that's created a large berm). Or going to lowes to get a ton of fertilizer/plants/gardening equipment for my spouse.

I also use it to commute, and it's even better at that (part of that is mine being the Platinum trim). Quiet, smooth, powerful, has Android Auto/CarPlay (unlike GM's products), etc.

They really are a fantastic vehicle for those who don't need to quickly tow heavy trailers 400 miles. Especially on the used market.

I think the issue was that Ford wasn't making much margin on them and they weren't moving sufficient volume to make up for that. (around 20K/yr avg)

That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.

Sounds like an argument for better hiring practices and planning.

Producing a lot of code isn’t proof of anything.

I wholeheartedly agree. Shitty companies steal art and then put out shitty products that shitty people use to spam us with slop.

The same goes for code as well.

I’ve explored Claude code/antigravity/etc, found them mostly useless, tried a more interactive approach with copilot/local models/ tried less interactive “agents”/etc. it’s largely all slop.

My coworkers who claim they’re shipping at warp speed using generative AI are almost categorically our worst developers by a mile.

Or the Apple Watch, AirPods, HomePod, iPad, etc.

They’ve made plenty of things. I liken them to the Lexus of consumer electronics; expensive for what they are, thoughtfully designed, and conservative in their approach to adopting new trends.

Why not both? And that's a good point, there are a LOT of incentives to make things arbitrarily complex in a variety of fields.

Not the original commenter, but I 100% agree that it's weird we have so many ways to describe dictionaries/hash tables/maps/etc. and lists.

Yeah, I don't want to be uncharitable, but I've noticed that a lot of stem fields make heavy use of esoteric language and syntax, and I suspect they do so as a means of gatekeeping.

I understand that some degree of formalism is required to enable the sharing of knowledge amongst people across a variety of languages, but sometimes I'll read a white paper and think "wow, this could be written a LOT more simply".

Statistics is a major culprit of this.

I'd argue that placing faith in any large institution is folly. Especially when that institution has a bunch of perverse incentives to act immorally.

Any nation with any amount of leverage has abused it.