Big enough dip will cause algorithmic sell off I imagine deepening the dip.

I wonder if there will be smaller version of the model that can run on Strix Halo in 128GB.

There are certain things that would be a pain to do as the platforms we use gives us so much more than just hosting. It means a lot more operational work in our case and loss of certain functionality that has to be reimplemented using some other stack. I don't see it as feasible in the short term, nor cost effective.

I find it crazy that people are so obsessed with the current administration they want the world economy to crash. I can tell you that in a current climate a complete world economy crash is going to play out very very badly politically all over the world. I have a real bad feeling it will be a replay of the 30s.

I wasn't aware that there are people who want it to crash. I've just been getting the feeling that no one understands why it isn't crashing or hasn't crashed yet amidst a bunch of really destabilizing policies.

If you are rooting for the us economy to crash you are rooting for the world economy to crash. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face comes to mind.

Speaking for myself, I’m not rooting for anything, let alone the us or the world economy to crash. I’m seeing the chaos and inflated prices and it’s defying my mental model of how the market works. So I guess if I’m rooting for anything, it’s reality.

I remember looking at the way graphics work on the Apple II and it looked pretty crazy lol with how memory layout worked to generate pixels.

Even better you can have both like a lot of countries in Europe. The access to public healthcare also keeps the premium down. Extensive cover for a family of four is less than 200 in Spain a month out of pocket.

Actually in Spain Social Security is 30 to 40% of what you earn. From the remainder 60% it is up to 50% in IRPF taxes, so you could pay 70% of what you earn.

The trick is that Franco hid the social security tax in the company side so normal people don't see it, but it is there.

Over that there is IBI for your house, there is IVA on anything you buy, and there are central bank inflation taxing anything you own in absolute terms.

Oh don't get me started on the taxes. Just the solidarity tax they added from the younger generation to the pensioners makes my blood boil. How about cutting the top pensions and returning some of the money to the bottom of pile instead. The tax regime is also destroying small independent businesses.

But we have at least the option of additional private coverage and it is not crazy expensive like in the US.

Europe always overcharging and underdelivering.

I am forever thankful for the Socialism that allowed me to get a degree for $3k, though.

The downside is of course over-enrollment but at least the bartenders didn't come out $50k into debt. I hear it is different now.

Im the EU there is Intel Ireland at least.

Im always surprised people forget that Intel exists and still has high performance nodes (just release panther lake on their newest node). They even have a plant in Ireland.

It's not that people forget that Intel exists, it's that they are effectively irrelevant to the foundry business.

> Becoming a meaningful customer of Samsung or Intel is very risky: it takes years to get a chip working on a new process, which hardly seems worth it if that process might not be as good, and if the company offering the process definitely isn’t as customer service-centric as TSMC.

TSMC is a reliable supplier and there are no doubts about conflicts of interest. The same cannot be said for Intel and Samsung. If Intel's AI chip business faces chip shortages (like what may already be happening), can their foundry be depended on to ship your chips?

No one wants to be the idiot who staked their future on Intel and then gets wiped out when Intel doesn't deliver.

No one forgets that. Intel will get some customers. It's inevitable because according to the article, TSMC had severely underestimated AI demand in 2023 and 2024 by not drastically increasing capex in those years.

you also need submarines to have a "credible" second strike deterrent. It's not enough to just have a bomb.

Sweden already has good submarines https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/cheap-100000000-submarin...

Also used to run a nuclear weapons program back in the day[1]. Though, to be honest, I think it'd be politically impossible to revive today. There's barely political will to build new nuclear power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...

I do not think that nuclear power is viewed same as nuclear war heads. One is perceived as potentional ecological catasprophe and the second one as a weapon of retaliation.

I honestly don't think most people understand either. Younger generations are a bit more open minded, but for a lot of people who lived through the news reports of Cs137-fallout from Chernobyl raining down on them, nuclear anything is represents an invisible and scary boogyman.

I like this explanation why people in old soviet block tent much more to support nuclear energy. When Chernobyl accident happened, communists we're mainly silent about that but countries which we're affected and had a free press were (rightfully) panicking so general population became scared about the use of nuclear as a energy source.

Submarines are one of several options for this.

Rockets, submarines, aircraft, or even a nuke in a container ship parked in a big harbor work.

China's recent container ship weaponization efforts are .. interesting - https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo...

Reminds me of the Rapid Dragon missile system the US uses to weaponize cargo planes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)

Delivery of nuclear weapon via shipping container might seem like a deterrent but it's kind of the opposite thing.

For something to be a deterrent it must have a few properties. Delivery taking a non-zero amount of time and producing a gigantic visible ordeal from outer space is a feature here. A container bomb going off somewhere in a civilian logistics chain is a surprise. Surprises cannot be deterrent by their very definition. The inability to ~instantly attribute the attack to some party would only invite additional instability.

The deterrence aspect is having nukes your adversary can't be certain of getting rid of on a preemptive strike.

You don't have to have them on a container ship. You need the credible threat of being able to do so.

Container ships tend to be fairly slow to respond and may not function as expected during a nuclear war.

The only way for this to work as a retaliatory measure is to have the weapons already in place at the target locations. Now, imagine if someone were to discover the weapon and trace it back to whomever installed it. This is effectively a slow motion nuclear exchange that was initiated by the "defender".

The point of this particular sort of deterrence is to prevent a decapitation strike by an opponent who thinks they can knock them all out.

"Yeah, you can drop bunker busters on the silos you know about, but six months later one of your cities evaporates."

The five big nuclear powers use subs for this, but it's hardly the only option.

A key feature of those subs is that it won't be six months later. It will be an hour later because one is already stationed just outside your waters.

It's also a bit more sneaky than a damn merchant vessel. You really think you're getting secrecy of a nuke existing on a merchant vessel? Why? You have given the enemy intelligence agency nothing more than an entry level homework assignment. That vessel is 99/100 getting intercepted or sunk. How many of your merchant vessels are otherwise sailing towards the country that just armegeddon'd you?

> A key feature of those subs is that it won't be six months later.

It certainly doesn't have to be, but that doesn't mean it can't be.

> You really think you're getting secrecy of a nuke existing on a merchant vessel?

Things are very routinely smuggled into countries this way today.

And nukes are surprisingly hard to detect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/detecting-nuclear...

"Twice in recent years the two of us helped an ABC News team that smuggled a soda can–size cylinder of depleted uranium through radiation detectors at U.S. ports. The material did not pose a danger to anyone, but it did emit a radiation signature comparable to that of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can be assembled into a nuclear bomb."

> How many of your merchant vessels are otherwise sailing towards the country that just armegeddon'd you?

Why would you put it on your own vessel?

Or missile systems constantly moved around on roads, railroads, or underground tunnels. And there’s also “launch on warning.”

Or just a big enough nuke in the frozen northern tundra, one large enough to cause nuclear winter for the whole world.

Or a fleet of TELs roaming the uninhabited regions.

And launch vehicles.

We actually have had 4 train accidents and incidents in a week.

https://people.com/train-collides-with-crane-arm-in-4th-rail...

It's clear some of them are probably caused by neglect in maintenance, others are freak accidents.

It's pretty crazy the statistical probabilities involved for something like this.

5!

An Asturias Circanías train collided with debris from a collapsed tunnel wall on Thursday afternoon in Olloniego. No injured though