441–450 of 1001 posts
> $920 million per month from October 2026 through June 2029 for access to “approximately 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, CPUs, memory, and other related components. That's about $8,400/month per "component" is that in the ballpark at all with what a month of dedicated/exclusive access to an NVIDIA GPU would go for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outlaw what? Prevent companies from selling goods and services to each other?
The problem described isn't companies buying goods and services. It's buying from an entity they partially own and then profiting as that entity becomes more valuable because of the purchase.
Google renting infra from xAI, I did not see that coming. My understanding of what computers are doing, what companies are doing and what governments are doing seems to be getting worse day by day.
Financial shenanigans aside, xAI seems to be buying hardware at breakneck speed. So why not? https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/musks-xai-is-being-sued-ov...
And
"Shit why did we agree to buy so much hardware if i can't even use the current one fully?"
to
"Ah fuck it, who cares if i indirectly pivot to selling this compute. It brings money and my Fanboys probably think its some magic smartness and not just ignorance"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to play “active investor” and pick and choose what companies you invest in, don’t be surprised when you underperform the whole market. SpaceX could rise to be a major winner that makes people a lot of money. And then what? You missed out and underperform the whole market.
OK, but SpaceX is not printing money out of thin air. And neither does the stock market. Somebody will be left holding the bag eventually.
I think so too. I also thought that about Facebook: IPO around 40, swiftly down to 20 - I was laughing about stupid retail getting wrecked. Now it's around 600...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has nothing to do with Grok, at least not the current iteration. SpaceX is the only company that can concievably launch large scale orbital compute.
I’m out of the loop, why is compute better /after/ being launched into space? Is the idea just to be co-located within the ISP to reduce round trip time to the LLMs?
And you don't have to deal with any of the site selection stuff you have for terrestrial data centers. No NIMBYs. No politicians trying to extort bribes. No water problems.
In space there are no earthquakes, tornadoes, or floods.
I'm still skeptical. It's hard to believe it costs so much to build a data center on the ground that putting it into orbit is an economically viable alternative.
This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%. SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google renting infra from xAI, I did not see that coming. Actually that seems to be fairly logical? Hardware is what xAI has , and it's in great demand. So sell what makes you money. The real story here is that that xAI hardware is going to be running Gemini and not Grok. Which is to say: Grok basically failed as a frontier AI and they need to pivot to a business model which makes money. Obviously not everything Mu…
Could you please describe the other satellite launch services whose prices are competitive with SpaceX?
But otherwise yeah SpaceX one that one for now. Only issue with this: We don't have enough payload for SpaceX to expand that much more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think. Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.
> Sidenote: 3 is actually high. Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10.
I would also like to point out, that on a forward P/E basis, AAPL is quite overvalued compared to historical norms, but basically every tech company is right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question on my mind is-is this IPO designed to rip off recreational passive investors and those of us that invest in retirement accounts?
How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?