181–190 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but where do we draw the line? Would 39% be okay? and who's gonna draw the line and enforce it?
Do they actually have the cash to buy all of this RAM? If not then it should be very illegal.
And are Samsung, etc. happy for this state of affairs to keep their prices elevated but not seem like the bad guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like it is, but the question is whether the current Justice Department will do anything about it.
> Seems like it is Do you have a citation for what law is being violated? Or just vibes?
I like how one of the reference links betrays how the article itself was researched, possibly written; HN hides the end of the url, which is "utm_source=chatgpt.com": > https://www.economist.com/business/2025/11/19/cracks-are-app... You have to appreciate the irony :)
Would it be as ironic if one wrote an article about Google and used Google search to research their sources?
Moves like this should be illegal. It's becoming increasingly clear that OpenAI is going to get lapped by Google on technical merits. So this is the "code red" solution? Supply shenanigans? They are getting beat in the developer market by Anthropic. And getting beat on fundamental tech by Google. This is a company whose ostensible mission is to "benefit all of humanity" ...
As in producers not over-producing RAM should be illegal? A presumably short-term price spike in RAM of all things is a non-issue. It is a luxury good that only a very small number of people care about and there is no reason to think this blip is going to last. Apple did stuff like this all the time at their high point in the late 2000s and early 2010s, and it would happen often in other markets. The world is not sta…
This is an incorrect and incredibly out of touch comment fragment. Computer part derivatives are an essential item to economic activity in most countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they mean is that they bought 40% of all RAM production, they managed to do that by simultaneously making two big deals at the same time. It's buying up 40% of all RAM production with the intention to have most of it idle in warehouses that is "dirty". And in order to be able to do that, they needed to be secretive and time two big deals at the same time.
> It's buying up 40% of all RAM production with the intention to have most of it idle in warehouses They have no incentive to purchase a rapidly-depreciating asset and then immediately shelve it, none They might have to warehouse inventory until they can spin-up module-manufacturing capacity, but that's just getting their ducks in a row
It screws up the price for their competitors. That's an incentive. Particularly with so many "AI datacenter" buildouts on the horizon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what companies will be around 5 years from now, but I would bet there will be more demand for RAM and the price per GB will be at least what it was before this price shock.
RAM is a very cyclical market, historically. You can look at $MU historical charts and kind of see that it trades like a cyclical (compare it to $RIO, for example). Cyclical companies are easily burned by investing in infrastructure right at the peak. It happens all the time with little mining companies, and I think DRAM manufacturers are sort of the mining companies of tech.
Am I crazy for wanting this to be in Full ECC RAM modules suitable for composition into many device factors with hope that we'll finally go to reliable memory for all markets as a result?
Moves like this should be illegal. It's becoming increasingly clear that OpenAI is going to get lapped by Google on technical merits. So this is the "code red" solution? Supply shenanigans? They are getting beat in the developer market by Anthropic. And getting beat on fundamental tech by Google. This is a company whose ostensible mission is to "benefit all of humanity" ...
As in producers not over-producing RAM should be illegal? A presumably short-term price spike in RAM of all things is a non-issue. It is a luxury good that only a very small number of people care about and there is no reason to think this blip is going to last. Apple did stuff like this all the time at their high point in the late 2000s and early 2010s, and it would happen often in other markets. The world is not sta…
The world runs on computers. It is as essential as oil for the functioning of societies. Increase in silicon costs is going to increase costs unilaterally across the board. It happened during the pandemic and something similar will happen now. If anything it should be a wake up call to countries to start thinking about securing their own supply chains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They definitely can, as anybody could, for a short enough period of time. The only ones betting they'll be able to sustain it for a long period are the ones paying the currently very inflated price for ram.
> for a short enough period of time but it's not a short term deal. funny enough, there's a cohort of bonds that never even made one payment. They are called first payment default bonds. There is a cheekier nickname for them, but it escapes me at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has a lot of momentum behind it Does it? It's mostly the US pushing against globalism right now. Trump managed to unite almost the entire world.
Is it? I'm fairly certain many countries have had a very strong showing from nationalist parties in recent years, or am I way off base?
Left-wingers are only globalist in the most literal sense of "well, I'd like it if we got rid of these migration barriers". "Internationalist" would be a better term for them.
Globalist Nationalism is an ideology of contradictions. It purports that, no really, you're the real master race and everyone else's just a stooge that'll get taken out the moment we can get rid of these pesky liberals with their freedoms. They need shittons of spatial partitioning to make that work.