31–40 of 197 posts
That puts a cap on surplus (potentially unused?) datacenter capacity that's around by the time the AI bubble pops.
Why is it a big deal? Nvidia invested $2b into CoreWeave for 9% equity stake. CoreWeave is spending $35b in CapEx in 2026. Therefore, Nvidia's investment is only 5.7% of CoreWeave's single year CapEx. The other $32b is coming from other sources that isn't Nvidia. This is hardly circular. Nvidia invests in Neoclouds because it's a hedge against hyperscalers having too much power, ie designing and prioritizing their ow…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Plausible.
> ... as that is when many globalist think tanks declare they will invade Russia to take their resources, and it's unlikely even China can ignore that, and here comes World War III.
Complete nonsense, for several reasons.
1. Are you saying that think tanks are saying now that they will invade Russia? If so, I want to see your sources. Or are you saying that you are confident now that think tanks will later say to invade Russia in 2030? If so, I want to see your logic.
2. "Think tanks declare they will invade Russia". Think tanks don't invade anybody, because they don't have armies. Think tanks can say whatever they want; they have to get someone with actual armies to agree.
3. Nobody with an army wants to invade Russia, resources or no. Russia is a terrible place to invade. It's too big, too far, too much strategic depth.
4. Current Russian military doctrine says that an invasion that is succeeding will be grounds for using their nukes. That probably won't mean just tactical nukes. If the military or the think tanks want any part of that, they're incompetent.
5. The resources are more in Siberia than in European Russia. The most likely successful invader would be China (if they're willing to run the risk of the nukes). If the globalist think tanks think that they are going to benefit, they aren't thinking.
Yandex, not nebius. Surprised how the world gets on kgb again and again, and again
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that it's not about the money itself but the model: - you fund a new company and sign long terms contracts with it - this new company uses the money you gave it and a lot of debt (backed by long term contracts) to build datacenters and buy a lot of GPU - your figures look great What happens when they run out of debt or funds? If they reach some kind of profitability it's not a big deal, but if not…
> If they reach some kind of profitability it's not a big deal, but if not ... What is the end of this sentence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
In case you didn't notice, nobody has invaded Russia since Hitler. Instead it has been Russia invading other countries, using whatever imaginary threat as an excuse. You may be right about WW3 in 2030, but based on the track record it's more likely that Russia will be the invader.
Why is it a big deal? Nvidia invested $2b into CoreWeave for 9% equity stake. CoreWeave is spending $35b in CapEx in 2026. Therefore, Nvidia's investment is only 5.7% of CoreWeave's single year CapEx. The other $32b is coming from other sources that isn't Nvidia. This is hardly circular. Nvidia invests in Neoclouds because it's a hedge against hyperscalers having too much power, ie designing and prioritizing their ow…
I've said it before, I will say it again: all that circular investment, all the IOUs, all the billions of dollars of money that are floating around in the entire AI web... it will seriously wreck the US economy, the volume is orders of magnitude worse than what caused the 2007ff global financial crisis. But if OpenAI and Anthropic both manage to enter the fray as well and automatically get made part of the NASDAQ and…
Nobody lives in GPUs and what was the ratio of equity/debt for the toxic assets in 2007?