"Former Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer is closing the doors on her consumer software startup Sunshine, and is selling the company’s assets to her new AI startup, Dazzle" and "all of Sunshine’s employees will move to the new company".
Under what conditions is it better to buy the assets and hire the employees instead of just change the name and product offering of the company? Is it just to get the investors off the cap table?
Indeed; and when you don't want the brand it's even more ideal. We saw a few months ago an example of the "new company" buying the brand and the assets but not the liabilities, including some suckers who bought "lifetime" subscriptions[1] from the old owners that they allegedly didn't even disclose, and which legally speaking weren't the liability of this random unrelated company which just bought the assets and the brand of the defunct company who made the promises.
In this case though with a new name and product that won't be an issue.
[1] someone else will remember the name of that company - it escapes me
It's not illegal just (possibly) shady, but there are ways to link the former company's liabilities to the purchaser in some situations in some jurisdictions. That may apply here but that's for a whole court to decide.
It's not specifically against a law but debtors who got shafted can choose to sue the "old" and "new" companies under a few broader laws, basically alleging "I had a valid contract with the old company but this sale is a sham transaction to get out of the contract and 'NewCo' is unjustly enriching themselves by screwing us 'OldCo' debtors." IANAL but my sense is such a case can be won but is far from a slam dunk and it will cost money and take time. Debtors will have to decide if they are out enough money to be worth sinking more money into recovering it. This kind of move might also be an aggressive escalation tactic in a hardball negotiation with debtors unwilling to renegotiate on acceptable terms. It's possible that the OldCo/NewCo people doing this may choose to leave certain assets in OldCo to make legal challenges less likely to prevail than if they'd completely emptied out OldCo.
Other impacts can include future potential NewCo lenders being pretty leery about getting involved with the same people. It's also not a great look for the founder(s)/senior execs in terms of future resume - unless there are extenuating circumstances which justify doing it. An example can be something like a fundamental disagreement between co-founders who are major shareholders. In that scenario this may not be to shaft debtors but rather for the majority co-founders, investors and key employees to 'dump' a minority non-cooperating co-founder who's no longer involved with the company, has a "change of control" veto and won't sell their shares but can't stop an asset sale. Basically the board approves the sale and the key execs/employees all vote with their feet. The original OldCo shareholders still own those shares, they're just worthless without the people, IP, assets, etc. In such a case, the non-cooperating shareholder might have grounds to sue but one defense can be a solid paper trail showing the company treated them fairly, offered to buy out their shares at fair market value and was basically forced into this as the only alternative.
This is why I said ostensibly. I think it should be assumed the financial parts were done on the up and up. Such that disclosures and such can waive a lot of the concerns that would make it illegal.
Valuable to new investors. Old investors get hosed. I really struggle with these sorts of situations. She’s presumably doing something similar with the new company so all the old investors who didn’t participate (presuming a pay to play) get hosed. Is that really fair?
In my experience, the alternative to a pay to play or similar situation in which the old investors get hosed is the company dying, so they get hosed anyway. The fact is, a messed up cap table or zombie company is not attractive to new investors, so cleaning it up is an unfortunate necessity.
One way to look at it is do you want zero or do you want pennies on the dollar for it?
Is it crappy? Yeah. Doubly so if being abused by the founder. There is a version of this that is just the best of two bad options though.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when the founder doesn't share the same pain as the investors and the employees but such is life and it's hard to draw a line anyway, especially for someone super rich and with star power like her.
IMO the investors deserve a fair price for her 'buying' her old trash. I assume they won't get it and she'll be able to buy her old trash for pennies, probably 100 of them.
A typical startup would require the consent of a majority of the investor shares for a sale of all the assets, so there would be investor protection and consent to this type of a transaction.
And indeed this article says “Almost all of Sunshine’s investors, who include Norwest Venture Partners, Felicis Partners, and SV Angel, have signed off on the deal, Wired cited the sources as saying.”
So the investors think whatever is happening is a fair deal.
It's "valuable" to the company and to new investors. It's quite the opposite to old investors. In the world of public companies, a "liquidate a shell company" trick like this is presumptively fraud. If you want to liquidate the company you have to buy back the stock at market price, not whatever your purchaser is offering.
It's legitimate only if the existing investors are getting enough liquidity back from the sale to make it worth the transaction. The article says that "almost" all the investors are on board, so... maybe.
Clean cap table and she probably provided a decent amount of the funding for the first startup. It's also more than likely a tax thing here. I don't think people ought to get too obsessed with the contractual details on this one.
There are lots of ways to see dimes in these scenarios like signing bonuses or bonuses for closing the funding or selling shares into the new funding. Also she already has more dimes than this failed attempt can bring so it isn't as big of an impact as it would be to someone with nothing.
Liabilities don’t transfer, Corporate structure doesn’t transfer, and as you point out investors don’t either.
Soft liabilities may be significant. For example here we are talking about the move. The headline “Sunshine launches Dazzle” is about a failing company and we wouldn’t be talking about it on the HN front page.
And if you are adequately capitalized (you probably are not), starting a new company is an easy business decision. And if you are a serial entrepreneur, starting new companies is what you do.
When new capital is needed, the old investors (investors in the old company) are given the equivalent of cents on the dollar on the new company, while the new investors do the usual.
Old investors are welcome to put new money into the new venture, of course.
Both models have improved intelligence on Artificial Analysis index with lower end-to-end response time. Also 24% to 50% improved output token efficiency (resulting in lower cost).
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite improvements include better instruction following, reduced verbosity, stronger multimodal & translation capabilities. Gemini 2.5 Flash improvements include better agentic tool use and more token-efficient reasoning.
Model strings: gemini-2.5-flash-lite-preview-09-2025 and gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025
2.5 Flash is the first time I've felt AI has become truly useful to me. I was #1 AI hater but now find myself going to the Gemini app instead of Google search. It's just better in every way and no ads. The info it provides is usually always right and it feels like I have the whole generalized and accurate knowledge of the internet at my fingertips in the app. It's more intimate, less distractions. Just me and the Gemini app alone talking about kale's ideal germination temperature, instead of a bunch of mommy bloggers, bots, and SEO spam.
Now how long can Google keep this going and cannibalizing how they make money is another question...
It's also excellent for subjective NLP-type analysis. For example, I use it for "scouting" chapters in my translation pipeline to compile coherent glossaries that I can feed into prompts for per-chapter translation.
This involves having it identify all potential keywords and distinct entities, determine their approximate gender (important for languages with ambiguous gender pronouns), and then perform a line-by-line analysis of each chapter. For each line, it identifies the speaking entity, determines whose POV the line represents, and identifies the subject entity. While I didn't need or expect perfection, Gemini Flash 2.5 was the only model I tested that could not only follow all these instructions, but follow them well. The cheap price was a bonus.
I was thoroughly impressed, it's now my go-to for any JSON-formatted analysis reports.
Any idea what "output token efficiency" refers to?
Gemini Flash is billed by number of input/output tokens, which I assume is fixed for the same output, so I'm struggling to understand how it could result in lower cost. Unless of course they have changed tokenization in the new version?
For others who, like me, didn't know what "clankers" are: it appears it's a popular derogatory term for robots or AI, arising from the Star Wars universe where clone troopers used the term as a derogatory term for droids.
"Clangers (usually referred to as The Clangers)[2] is a British stop-motion animated children's television series, consisting of short films about a family of mouse-like creatures who live on, and inside, a small moon-like planet. They speak only in a whistled language, and eat green soup (supplied by the Soup Dragon) and blue string pudding."
Sounds like early 70s.
"The programmes were originally broadcast on BBC1 between 1969 and 1972, followed by a special episode which was broadcast in 1974."
The word clanker has been previously used in science fiction literature, first appearing in a 1958 article by William Tenn in which he uses it to describe robots from science fiction films like Metropolis.[2]
He actually taught science fiction and had lots of interesting stories of the classic era of scifi, like BEM's - a bug-eyed-monster, arms wrapped around a woman in s "brass brassiere".
hmmm.. which now I realize explains "the flat eyed monster"...
it’s wildly popular, it’s all over tiktok, tiktok comments, twitch chats everywhere, my 11 yo niece and her friends say it when something looks ai, i literally heard a group of teenagers saying it in line at a restaurant today.
Aaron, I say this with love, but we're getting old buddy. We're no longer the generation that decides what's popular in pop culture. Mean Girls is 21 years old btw.
>The word clanker has been previously used in science fiction literature, first appearing in a 1958 article by William Tenn in which he uses it to describe robots from science fiction films like Metropolis.[2] The Star Wars franchise began using the term "clanker" as a slur against droids in the 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando before being prominently used in the animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which follows a galaxy-wide war between the Galactic Republic's clone troopers and the Confederacy of Independent Systems' battle droids.
nor with "clackers", and insanely dangerous early 70s toy consisting of two glass balls you smash together at accelerated speeds right in front of your face. I guess they were trying to make us feel better that they were taking our jarts away.
Thanks for the reminder of that! This girl who sat behind me in second grade was great with clackers. Also, my memory is a bit foggy, but I don't think the jart ban was until eigth grade. So no causality there. Pop Rocks causing internal explosions and spider eggs in Bubble Yum occured somewhere between Clackers and Jarts. :-)
LOL, what I did just read? I did not understand the concrete nouns in your comment, except for "girl". The "spider eggs" you mention do not seem to be the ones I thought.
Without searching on the internet, I wouldn't even know the context on the level of which decade or country. Fascinating!
Probably from the same onomatopoeia, though. A car-sized machine makes more of a clunk, while a person-sized machine makes more of a clank, when you smash either with that old monkey wrench and extreme prejudice
I feel like it started as a joke, but now people are just using it as a stand-in for racial slurs against Black and brown people, and it's honestly sickening. Like TikToks of people making classically racist jokes about Black people but changing it to "clanker" as a workaround.
Yeah, the whole "let's come up with a slur for <blank>" thing entices people to build their fictional racism on real racism, and it just devolves from there. I saw "wirebacks" thrown around recently, among others.
Nobody wants it to be, but wanting something to not be about racism doesn't make it not about racism.
Jim Crow "ended" (it's what we tell ourselves) in the south in 1965 with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Our last two presidents were adults when that happened, and it's not like racism was solved when those laws were passed.
The US still has a lot of work to do here - it's absurd to me to hear US Conservatives talking about how slavery ended in the 1860s so we should end protections for African Americans because it's been "so long". It hasn't, and they know that.
Like, clanker is the equivalent of a racial slur but for robots. The reason it works and is funny is because we already know what racial slurs are and have a contexr for it.
If racial slurs didn't exist, neither would clanker.
You have to actually think about the world we live in and why things are the way they are. Its a easy to say "just cuz lol", but we're engineers. Nothing happens "just cuz". No, there's a reason.
No reason to be uncivil. It's a bit of a stretch to say that "clanker" is related to race in any way. Lots of slurs have nothing to do with race, you're projecting your own bias and prejudices as some sort of universal linguistic truth. In highschool band the percussionists called the wind section "honkers," were they making some vailed n-word allusion? No, it was silly and the wind section were all blowhards so we made fun of them with a little in-group slur.
Anyone who says "clanker" is analogous to any actual racial slur is revealing their belief that AI, in its current state, can be deserving of the same rights that humans have. Which is demonstrably false, given the current state of AI.
Now, true AGI? There's a debate to be had there regarding rights etc. But you better be able to prove that a so-called AGI is truly sentient before you push for that. This isn't Data. There is nothing even remotely close to sentience present in any LLM. I don't even know if AGI is going to be achievable within 100 years. But as far as I'm concerned, AI "slurs" are just blowback against the invasion of AI into everyday life, as is increasingly common. There will be a point where the hard discussion of "does true artificial general intelligence deserve rights" will happen. That time is not now, except as a thought experiment.
I suppose this is similar to the debate over artificial rape porn. There are no victims, but we don't like the people on the other side so the speech itself becomes a problem.
>We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.
- Kurt Vonnegut
and
>If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.
>A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.
People were also starting to equate LLMs to the MS Office's Clippy. But somebody made a popular video showing that no, Clippy was so much better than LLMs in a variety or way, and people seem to have stopped.
It's definitely popular online, specifically on Reddit, Bluesky, Twitter, and TikTok. There's communities that have formed around their anti-AI stance[1][2][3], and after multiple organic efforts to "brainstorm slurs" for people who use AI[4], "clanker" has come out on top. This goes back at least 2 years[6] in terms of grassroots talk, and many more to the original Clone Wars usage[7].
For those who can see the obvious: don't worry, there's plenty of pushback regarding the indirect harm of gleeful fantasy bigotry[8][9]. When you get to the less popular--but still popular!--alternatives like "wireback" and "cogsucker", it's pretty clear why a youth crushed by Woke mandates like "don't be racist plz" are so excited about unproblematic hate.
This is edging on too political for HN, but I will say that this whole thing reminds me a tad of things like "kill all men" (shoutout to "we need to kill AI artist"[10]) and "police are pigs". Regardless of the injustices they were rooted in, they seem to have gotten popular in large part because it's viscerally satisfying to express yourself so passionately.
I readily and merrily agree with the articles that deriving slurs from existing racist or homophobic slurs is a problem, and the use of these terms in fashions that mirror actual racial stereotypes (e.g. "clanka") is pretty gross.
That said, I think that asking people to treat ChatGPT with "kindness and respect" is patently embarrassing. We don't ask people to be nice to their phone's autocorrect, or to Siri, or to the forks in their silverware drawer, because that's stupid.
ChatGPT deserves no more or less empathy than a fork does, and asking for such makes about as much sense.
Additionally, I'm not sure where the "crushed by Woke" nonsense comes from. "It's so hard for the kids nowadays, they can't even be racist anymore!" is a pretty strange take, and shoving it in to your comment makes it very difficult to interpret your intent in a generous manner, whatever it may be.
> I think that asking people to treat ChatGPT with "kindness and respect" is patently embarrassing. We don't ask people to be nice to their phone's autocorrect, or to Siri, or to the forks in their silverware drawer, because that's stupid.
> ChatGPT deserves no more or less empathy than a fork does.
I agree completely that ChatGPT deserves zero empathy. It can't feel, it can't care, it can't be hurt by your rudeness.
But I think treating your LLM with at least basic kindness is probably the right way to be. Not for the LLM - but for you.
It's not like, scientific - just a feeling I have - but it feels like practicing callousness towards something that presents a simulation of "another conscious thing" might result in you acting more callous overall.
So, I'll burn an extra token or two saying "please and thanks".
I do agree that just being nicer is a good idea, even when it's not required, and for largely the same reasons.
Incidentally, I almost crafted an example of whispering all the slurs and angry words you can think of in the general direction of your phone's autocomplete as an illustration of why LLMs don't deserve empathy, but ended up dropping it because even if nobody is around to hear it, it still feels unhealthy to put yourself in that frame of mind, much less make a habit of it.
I believe there's also some research showing that being nice gets better responses. Given that it's trained on real conversations, and that's how real conversation works, I'm not surprised.
I also believe AI is a tool, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that, due to some facet of human psychology, being "rude" might train me to be less respectful in other interactions.
Ergo, I might be more likely to treat you like a toilet.
Any "conversation" with a machine is dehumanizing.
Are you really in danger of forgetting the humanity of strangers because you didn't anthropomorphize a text generator? If so, I don't think etiquette is the answer
the thing is, though, that the text generator self-anthropomorphizes.
perhaps if an LLM were trained to be less conversational and more robotic, i would feel less like being polite to it. i never catch myself typing "thanks" to my shell for returning an `ls`.
I understand what you're saying, which is that the response it generates is influenced by your prompt, but feel compelled to observe that LLMs cannot want anything at all, since they are software and have no motivations.
I'd probably have passed this over if it wasn't contextually relevant to the discussion, but thank you for your patience with my pedantry just the same.
if the primary mode of interaction with my toilet was conversational, then yeah, i'd probably be polite to the toilet. i might even feel a genuine sense of gratitude since it does provide a highly useful service.
Interesting. I wonder if this is exactly an example of what the person you're responding to just now is saying. That being rude to an LLM has normalized that behavior such that you feel comfortable being rude to this person.
Eh, this doesn't strike me as wrong-headed. They aren't doing it because they feel duty-bound to be polite to the LLM, they maintain politeness because they choose to stay in that state of mind, even if they're just talking to a chatbot.
If you're writing prompts all day, and the extra tokens add up, I can see being clear but terse making a good deal of sense, but if you can afford the extra tokens, and it feels better to you, why not?
Looking at it from a statistical perspective: If we imagine text from the public internet being used during pretraining we can imagine, with few exceptions, that polite requests achieve their objective more often than terse or plainly rude requests. This will be severely muted during fine-tuning, but it is still there in the depths.
It's also easier in English to conjugate a command form simply by prefixing "Please" which employs the "imperative mood".
We have moved up a level in abstraction. It used to be punch cards, then assembler, then syntax, now words. They all do the same thing: instruct a machine. Understanding how the models are designed and trained can help us be more effective in that; just like understanding how compilers work can make us better programmers.
No time for a long reply, but what I want to write has video games at the center. Exterminate the aliens! is fine, in a game. But if you sincerely believe it's not a game, then you're being cruel (or righteous, if you think the aliens are evil), even though it isn't real.
(This also applies to forks. If you sincerely anthropomorphize a fork, you're silly, but you'd better treat that fork with respect, or you're silly and unpleasant.)
What do I mean by "fine", though? I just mean it's beyond my capacity to analyse, so I'm not going to proclaim a judgment on it, because I can't and it's not my business.
If you know it's a game but it seems kind of racist and you like that, well, this is the player's own business. I can say "you should be less racist" but I don't know what processing the player is really doing, and the player is not on trial for playing, and shouldn't be.
So yes, the kids should have space to play at being racist. But this is a difficult thing to express: people shouldn't be bad, but also, people should have freedom, including the freedom to be bad, which they shouldn't do.
I suppose games people play include things they say playfully in public. Then I'm forced to decide whether to say "clanker" or not. I think probably not, for now, but maybe I will if it becomes really commonplace.
> But if you sincerely believe it's not a game, then you're being cruel (or righteous, if you think the aliens are evil), even though it isn't real.
let me stop you right there. you're making a lot of assumptions about the shapes life can take. encountering and fighting a grey goo or tyrannid invasion wouldn't have a moral quality any more than it does when a man fights a hungry bear in the woods
it's just nature, eat or get eaten.
if we encounter space monks then we'll talk about morality
Sorry, I was unclear — that racism comment was tongue in cheek. Regardless of political leanings, I figured we can all agree that racism is bad!
I generally agree re:chatGPT in that it doesn’t have moral standing on its own, but still… it does speak. Being mean to a fork is a lot different from being mean to a chatbot, IMHO. The list of things that speak just went from 1 to 2 (humans and LLMs), so it’s natural to expect some new considerations. Specifically, the risk here is that you are what you do.
Perhaps a good metaphor would be cyberbullying. Obviously there’s still a human on the other side of that, but I do recall a real “just log off, it’s not a real problem, kids these days are so silly” sentiment pre, say, 2015.
I find the term a bit confusing as it's common use in my experience are folks who only vaguely have an idea what AI is. Not to say their concerns are wrong (very generally) but it's usage doesn't usually convey much knowledge about the topic. It conveys more passion and drama than sense in my experience.
For anyone who struggles to understand what fascism is, the comment above is fascist trolling in its purest form.
And here's why:
The essence of fascism is to explain away hatred toward other groups of people by dehumanizing them. The hatred of an outside group is necessary, in the fascist framework, to organize one group of people into a unit who will follow a leader unquestioningly. Taking part in crimes against the outside group helps bind these people to the leader, who absolves them of their normal sense of guilt.
A fascist will use "fascist" to sarcastically refer to themselves in ridiculous scenarios, e.g. as a human defending humanity against robots, or a human exterminating rats. All of this is to knowingly deploy it in a way that destigmatizes being called a fascist, while also suggesting that murderous measures taken by past fascist movements have not been genocidal, but have been defending humans against subhumans. I'm not joking. Supposedly taking pride in being an anti-AI fascist is just a new twist on a very old troll. It's designed to mock and make light of mass murder, by suggesting that e.g. Nazism was no different from a populist movement defending themselves against machines, e.g. Jews.
Don't be seduced by the above comment's attempt at absurdist humor. This type of humor is typical of fascist dialect. It aims to amuse the simple-minded with superficial comparisons. It is deep deception disguised as harmless humor. Its true purpose has nothing to do with humans versus AI. Its dual purposes are to whitewash the meaning of fascism and to compare slaughtering "sub human groups" to defending humanity against AI.
This is another troll. I'm Jewish, and last I checked claiming to be Jewish does not exempt anyone from being called a fascist. Tacking "anti-Zionist" onto that, I could name a dozen explicitly fascist organizations which are anti-Zionist off the top of my head.
So I don't care what identity the person uses to backfill their ideology, it is still a pure fascist troll. And picking such an identity just makes it more obvious.
Go on then. Name a dozen anti Zionist Jewish run organisations that are explicitly fascist. I'd love to be corrected.
Currently your argument seems to be that satirising fascism is actually fascist. Which tbh also seems like a pretty fascist position to hold so I must be wrong.
Jreg is not "supposedly taking pride in an anti AI position". He is satirising exactly the thing you call our actual fascists for doing. He is lampooning the kind of nonsense real fascists hide behind.
JREG is the only Canadian I would accept as a Presidential Candidate for the US, and i don't even agree with half of what he says. I just think he'd do a better job than most.
I found a lot of value in this article. Out of frustration with people who are alarmist over how much water a datacenter "consumes" compared to households, I've probably erred too often towards:
'People sometimes invoke the idea that water moves through a cycle and never really gets destroyed, in order to suggest that we don’t need to be concerned at all about water use. But while water may not get destroyed, it can get “used up” in the sense that it becomes infeasible or uneconomic to access it.'
Side note, this personal anecdote from the author caught me off guard: "my monthly water bill is roughly 5% of the cost of my monthly electricity bill". I'm in the American southwest (but not arid desert like parts of Arizona/Nevada/Utah), and my monthly water cost averages out annually to ~60% of the cost of electricity. Makes me wonder if my water prices are high, if my electricity prices are low, if my water usage is high or my electricity usage is low.
Biggest alarmist is movement against Nestle using water for bottled water in California. They don’t even use as much as an average golf course.
How much water is wasted on golf courses in these arid regions? Or growing water intensive crops like alfalfa that isn’t even directly used to feed people.
Yep, 1.6 trillion gallons of water from the Colorado river goes into irrigation for alfalfa[1]. Google's total water consumption across all data centers in 2023 was 6.4 billion gallons[2].
People are sounding the alarm about water usage in AI data centers while ignoring the real unsustainable industries like animal agriculture.
Talking about wasteful. There 16,000 golf courses that use 312,000 gallons a day[1]. Thats 1.82 trillion gallons annually. Only 28 million people play golf course on a course. Google's MAU is 90%+ of US population, beef or milk consumptions i would guess that 90% of population consumes it at least once a month. We're focusing on things that everyone uses but the things that less than 10% of the populations partake in. Why do we have golf courses in arid regions that have severe water shortages? Before places like LA county spends $8 billion on a toilet to tap system[2], maybe shut down the golf courses first.
It’s a great example of using large numbers without context to scare people.
Say “6.4 billion gallons” in isolation and people will be horrified. Put it in context relative to something like alfalfa farming and it doesn’t even appear on the same scale.
I've remembered the fact that a million seconds is ~11 days and a billion seconds is ~32 years since I was a kid. Still feels pretty ridiculous as an adult, no-one who didn't know it has even guessed close (and some who try to work it out were way off).
I just had to google what a trillion is in years, and the answer made me realise I don't instinctively understand the relationship between a billion and a trillion either!
Each "-illion" is 1000x bigger than the previous one.
If you have some cubes 1 cm on a side (about the size of a sugar cube), you can make a bigger cube out of them with 10 little cubes along each edge. Now you have 1 big cube made from 1000 smaller cubes.
Your bigger cube is now 10cm x 10cm x 10 cm. Easy enough to pick up in one hand.
Now do it again. Make a bigger cube with 10 of those cubes along each edge. Now you have a cube 1 meter on each side. Too big to pick up by hand but it would still fit in the back of a pickup truck.
This 1-meter cube contains 1 million sugar cubes.
Do it again: With 1000 of the previous cubes, make a cube 10 meters on a side. This cube is the size of a 3-story house, and it contains 1 billion sugar cubes.
Now do it once more: With the house-sized cubes, make a 10x10x10. Now the cube is about the size of a football stadium. It contains 1 trillion sugar cubes.
Take 4 of these stadiums, call each sugar cube $1, and you have the market cap of Nvidia.
[Note: This is US usage. In older UK English, some of the "-illion" words mean different things than they do here.]
You pay for fuel for your car => Saudi monarchy gets it share because they supply it => while they completely waste 20% for “supercars” and vanity, they still have enough money to do whatever they want including => they grow alfalfa next to you to feed their local cattle
You are overlooking location. The ideal place to grow crops is a place with great soil, good weather, a long growing season, and abundant water, but there aren't a lot of those. Of those four things, water is the only one that can be reasonably transported.
Data centers have fewer constraints. It should be possible to place more or all of them in places where water is abundant.
My comment was just focused on total water use. I agree that location does matter, and that data centers should be placed where water is abundant.
It still doesn't change my concern about how unsustainable growing alfalfa is. Trillions of gallons to grow an inefficient animal feed crop while we're told by the evening news to take shorter showers (8 minute shower is ~16 gallons of water) and let our lawns die.
You are overlooking location. The ideal place to place a datacenter is a place with cheap land, cheap electricity, good backbone connectivity, and close to users, but there aren't a lot of those.
Water is not evenly distributed.aData centers are not bieng located where there is excess water, they are bieng located in areas where they have access to the critical infrastucture they need,and the use of domestic potable water supplys to cool there operations is done as it reduces there land
and infrastructure requirements, is quick, and they care nothing about the costs of electricity and water, while they drive up costs for the people who live in the surounding areas.
People NEED water, data does not.
People NEED agriculture, they do not NEED data.
conflating the water uses of things to people is false.
Vastly cheaper to just have an efficient water market. But the current system makes farmer either use their water allocations for agriculture or not have that water at all.
I remember doing the calculations on the Nestle plant that caused a big storm a few years ago. The plant sat on several acres of land, which if converted into an alfalfa farm, would have consumed the same amount of water. The surrounding area was littered with alfalfa farms so it wasn't an unfair comparison. Meanwhile that bottling plant employs dozens of people, far more then a farm would have.
Do you think that leading mothers away from natural breast feeding into buying nestle formula is good for babies?
Terminator crops that won't propagate from seed also have the same SaaS feel, making two natural solutions for human sustinanace up for rent, directing science research away from negative conclusions about both these scenarios, creating dependency on both these industries sounds like a win for money but not human wellbeing. Sign me up for the tribe that says no to that!
Great examples of the sort of nonsense I was talking about.
Formula is fine. How do I know that? If it weren't, if there were any evidence it was bad, the FDA would not allow it to be sold in the US. But there's a wide variety of such formulas here.
Perhaps you think formula is fine for we smart first worlders, but poor dumb third world mothers have to have their agency removed and us determine what they can choose? Strong pass on that; this is no longer the age of European colonialism.
Terminator crops... oh boy. This one is hilariously ridiculous. Their sin is that they don't allow the farmer to retain seeds and plant them again. You know what else has that property? All hybrid seeds! These have been around for nearly a century. No hybrids breed true if you try to replant them; the uniform combinations of genes in the first generation hybrid becomes randomized in the second generation.
You aren't complaining about terminator seeds, you are complaining about modern agriculture.
What I'm complaining about is everything being for rent. And how we get there in mamy cases is by turning a blind eye to knock on effects of these technologies. There's a reciprocal immune response between mother and baby through nursing. I haven't heard of a formula that has this feature. That link I posted claimed that approximately 212,000 babies died a year in areas without clean water when supplied with formula. That's a bleak outcome, is that just the cost of progress for you?
You're again engaging in the patronizing approach of removing any agency from those involved in these countries. Some mothers there would certainly benefit from access to formula, just as they do in your country. You remove this because you don't consider them able to make choices for themselves. It's the same horrid mindset of the colonialists, seeing the third worlders as primitives "just down from the trees".
I agree about the agency, except the game is rigged, once you stop breast feeding it's hard to start again. So a mother is sold on a way to feed a baby that can free her up to work and anyone can toss a bottle to the kid, but then water quality becomes problematic, and the baby is the most vulnerable. You can't fall back to breast feeding. And the formula is no doubt funded by third world debt arrangements. Nestle didn't have the foresight to think about water quality, and it resulted in a tragic outcome. Even though they also sell water, they could have been the hero and made twice as much money if they were in the loop (not sure if they were in the water business back then).
You can waste the energy you spent cleaning it and pumping it around. But between nuclear and solar we ought to have an overabundance of that.
In a market economy, if it becomes "economically infeasible" to purify used water, the price goes up slightly, and suddenly it makes a lot more sense to treat dirty water, or even seawater.
You see the same type of argument against oil or mineral use; the idea that we'll run out. But people who argue we'll run out almost always look at confirmed reserves that are economical to extract right now. When prices rise, this sends a signal to prospectors and miners to go look for more, and it also makes far more reserves economical.
For example, Alberta's oil sands were never counted as oil reserves in bygone decades, because mining it made no sense at the time. But the economy grew per capita and overall, prices rose, and suddenly Canada is an oil-rich nation.
A similar dynamic applies to water and everything else.
Of course there are finite amounts of oil and uranium and so on, but the amounts just on this one planet are absolutely mind-boggling. The Earth has a radius of 6400km, and our deepest mines are 3-4km. We may expect richer mineral deposits (not oil) as we go further down.
Keep following this price logic and at a certain point it'll make sense to mine the far side of the moon, the asteroid belt, and so on ad infinitum.
You are not technically wrong, but you are economically wrong.
The water cycle _could_ require spending grid energy to filter/pump water into an economically usable state. Instead if water was better managed, we would not need to build additional grid capacity for water management.
Your argument basically boils down to "If energy was unlimited, we could be wasteful!", which, again, is technically true, but ignores the economic reality.
From what I can glean from Google, the sun moves 1500 cubic kilometers of water from the ocean into the air every day, around 500,000 cubic kilometers a year (ie, a stupendous amount).
Apparently around 10% of that makes it up the various mountains and comes back down as rivers - that's 50,000 cubic kilometers.
And for scale, human "consumption" is 5000 cubic kilometers.
I agree we should be careful and intelligent about how we use water and where we get it from, but I fail to be alarmed.
Every degree of global warming raises the amount of water the air can hold by 7%. That's what's going on in California recently. We only need to put our finger on the scale to really fuck things up. We don't have to stand on it.
Also heat island effect. We don't have to move the needle in Yosemite to make downtown LA into a death trap.
What's your tidy "Me worry?" explanation for aquifer depletion?
Water used for nuclear reactor cooling can only be returned to the environment if its temperature is within 0.5 deg F of the local source temperature. I live near a facility that is on the river with several man made cooling lakes. During the winter, there is constant fog and ice by the roads. So much so, that the road to the facility itself has covered bridge crossing one of the lakes.
During drought, the capacity of the plant is reduced due to lack of cooling capacity.
And remember, the reactor is used to generate high pressure steam which produces electricity, hot water and low grade steam. Even with high efficiency gas turbines and heat integration, there is a significant amount of steam that needs to be condensed before it can be feed back into the reactor.
If it's the same molecule but downhill and mixed in with some other ones, it's just x number of joules and y number of dollars' worth of infrastructure away from being among its own kind and uphill from your tap again.
We get blasted with an uncountable number of these joules from above (the sun) and below (nuclear). Our economy is generating an exponentially increasing number of dollars.
I understand wanting to be careful with resources, but not to the point where frugality becomes a goal in and of itself.
That's like saying fossil fuels don't actually pollute or emit greenhouse cases, because we're just X joules away from sequestering it back from the atmosphere.
Desalination, and pumping water over thousands of miles is extremely expensive. Sure, you're not wrong, but the values of X and Y are uneconomical.
I don't think they're uneconomical. Fresh, clean water is astonishingly cheap; of course people are using it to grow almonds and alfalfa in the desert.
Just charge people what the water is worth and they'll stop, or water companies will be able to afford much more treatment capacity.
You have a point about sequestering CO2 molecules, but:
a) I'm sure this will get cheaper over time, just like every other technology
b) we should be using solar and nuclear for everything
People grow almonds in the desert specifically because they have access to artificially cheap water. In the U.S. lots of land comes with water rights: e.g. if a river or creek passes through your land you can use x% of the water to irregate your crops. Some of these water rights date back to the 1800s and they're locked in.
The water rights can be clawed back a couple ways: if they're unused for X years, or in times of drought.
There's an exception for droughts though: farmers with trees (that would die if unwatered) still get priority, while people that grow crops that replenish each season (like wheat) don't.
So this leads to perverse incentives where these farmers need to find a way to use ALL of their water, every year, or they'll lose access to their absurd water rights from the 1800s, and they need to use it on trees so it doesn't get clawed back during a multi year drought.
So, they end up planting the most water-hungry trees they can grow on their land (almonds), then they get to sell them to the world at artificially low prices because the water that was used to grow them is almost free.
Because you can find it in "concentrated" form (think entropy), all in an aquifer or a river, and these are everywhere. But these dry up because of our usage and the climate, and when they do you still have the same amount of water on the planet, it's just not as easily accessible. It's super spread out, it's too far away, it needs a lot of expensive processing to make usable, or all of the above.
What's cheaper and easier for you, to condense a cup of water from the air or to just turn on the faucet?
> we should be using solar and nuclear for everything
Why solar? Energy is not lost/consumed in the universe, so why not collect it from anywhere else. Energy is astonishingly cheap, that's why we use so much of it. If you know what I mean...
While I do agree the hysteria around water use is unfounded, it's just patently false to say that fresh water cannot be wasted, pointing out that the molecule is just in a harder to access state is pedantry.
But the reason I hammer on about this point is precisely due to the hysteria. In the popular imagination, we spray x million gallons of water onto a golf course, and it just evaporates, never to be seen again. It is the alarmism that alarms me.
True. However, substitution of one good for another, or bringing online another source, won’t be instantaneous and thus otherwise needless human suffering will occur. The raw numbers don’t capture that.
Here in Michigan, my water price is also about 5% of my electric bill. Which is also small, we barely used the AC this summer.
Water billing here is (frustratingly) not progressive: the first thousand gallons costs the same as the tenth or hundredth thousand gallons. It's cheap, we're surrounded by fresh water on the surface and you can stick a well down through 80-100 feet of glacial sand and gravel and get drinkable water basically anywhere.
I was surprised to learn that 70% of my township's municipal water is used by only 15% of the households: basically, those that irrigate their lawns daily.
>I'm in the American southwest (but not arid desert like parts of Arizona/Nevada/Utah)
Doesn’t matter whether you are in the desert or not, only matters if you are in a shared watershed with them. There is huge agricultural demand for water and water rights in those areas which translates to high prices for the areas where they can source water (like your presumably more-watered location)
I think the water-usage stuff regarding data centers is really lacking context in online discourse – and yet, I still believe that freshwater usage really needs to be more of a concern for people, generally. I'm not 'anti-AI' but, I cringe a bit every time someone dismissively says "water cycle" to dismiss concerns around freshwater because, some aquifers are not going to recharge in a meaningful timeframe. That water isn't 'destroyed' – but if a town is tight on water already, it's not necessarily coming back, practically speaking.
I would like to know how much water is taken by a datacenter vs. the same size space of apartments. I can see why it could be considered a bad choice for communities long term if a datacenter takes more.
I’ve driven through The Dalles. It’s a very small town. A search shows a population of 15,000 and declining annually.
It’s also right on a big river. The article you linked said that Google was spending nearly $30 million to improve the city’s water infrastructure so there are no problems.
Talking about this in terms of percentages of a small town’s water supply while ignoring the fact that the city is literally on a giant river and Google is paying for the water infrastructure is misleading.
That's because it's a large industry and nobody lives there. This pattern appears all over the place. The paper mills in the pacific northwest consume large multiples of the water used by their little towns.
That's not the point, the question was whether an apartment building would use the same amount of water and clearly an apartment would consume substantially less water.
No, the question was whether "the same size space of apartments" (i.e. apartment buildings occupying the same land area as the datacenter) would use more or less water than the datacenter.
Under reasonable assumptions, the apartments would use more water.
- Google's datacenter complex in the Dalles covers ~190 acres.
- Typical density for apartment buildings is 50 units/acre, meaning you'd have 9,500 units on 190 acres.
- Average household size in the US is 2.5, so the 9,500 units would have a population of 23,750.
- According to the original article, per capita domestic water usage in the U.S. is 82 gallons per day, meaning a total water consumption of 710M gal/yr for the apartments. And this doesn't count the substantial indirect water usage you'd need to support this population.
- The Google datacenter uses 355M gal/yr (per the Oregonian article).
- 710M > 355M
Now, it would be somewhat ridiculous to replace the entire Google datacenter with apartment buildings in a rural town with declining population, but that was the original question...
If you replace the area of that data center with apartments, as the question suggested, it would add half again to the local population, which could indeed use 30% of the city water.
I'm not understanding the logic. You want to add more population to the city? That doesn't seem fair but I'll concede I may not understand the point you're trying to make.
Assuming that the population is the same in the city and you just move residents into an apartment complex. I don't understand how you would get the same water consumption, am I missing something? Evaporative cooling is extremely water heavy and these facilities also have the normal HVAC you'd expect. Everything just seems to point to more water usage not less.
Some quick napkin math using averages (data center designs vary). One of Google's larger and thirstier data centers, in Oklahoma, is said to use 833 million gallons per year (that's about 2500 acre-feet, in useful terms). It occupies about 250 acres, most of which looks to be parking lots but whatever. The number of households that can be supported on 1 acre-foot per year ranges from 2 to 6 depending (Las Vegas on one end, San Francisco on the other).
You said apartments specifically and this urban form usually starts at 50 dwellings per acre, minimum, which would lead me to say the apartments use more water. The break-even point in this equation is 2-5 households per acre.
With no AC and gas hot water, my monthly water bill is ~150% of my electric (that water cost is not including the wastewater that is billed on the water metering).
My water usage is pretty average and my electric usage is apparently hilariously low.
I track my water usage and electricity usage every month. I'm confused why the cost ratio is off by an order of magnitude from the author. The base monthly charge of my water bill ignoring any usage is more then 10% of my largest electricity bill (so maybe that's the answer right there).
Presumably a reference to the river in Lord of the Rings or the WoW character, though the relation to either is somewhat lost on me. It is a cool name though.
Edit: or I'm dumb and the author's name is Anduin.
Even after reading this comment I looked back because I really didn’t know what you were talking about, and only after reading the comment about “Anduin” did I realize there was no r in the name. Crazy.
- "TAR-200 is a miniature, pretzel-shaped drug-device duo containing a chemotherapy drug, gemcitabine, which is inserted into the bladder through a catheter. Once inside the bladder, the TAR-200 slowly and consistently releases the gemcitabine into the organ for three weeks per treatment cycle."
- Phase 2 Clinical Trial
- 85 patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer
- "treated patients with TAR-200 every three weeks for six months, and then four times a year for the next two years"
- 70/85 patients—the cancer disappeared and still gone 1yr later in almost 50% patients
- FDA granted TAR-200 a New Drug Application Priority Review
My dad had his bladder removed. Cancer came back 18 months later and he was gone 4 months after that. It sucks.
Plus, I regret that he had to live with a colostomy bag for that time. His quality of life probably higher if they do the other option (name escapes me).
Do cancers have a tendency to come back with better drug resistance if it's not fully eliminated? at least a resistance to the drug that got rid of it the previous time?
I think a cancer’s treatment resistance means losing differentiating marks and becoming more and more like a stem cell.
With these evolutionary processes it’s a given, the surviving mutation was already present at the time of treatment. The higher the genetic diversity the higher the chance of said mutations. A cancer’s genome is often highly unstable, since apoptosis is disabled, so diversity tends to be high.
Metastases usually imply a good chunk of "god mode" features gained already, for solid tissue cancers (soft tissue cancers are a bit different), so it’s a bad starting point. Imaging cannot detect any tumor below say 2mm, so ultimately you never know the true stage or treatment success. So a cancer doesn’t "return", it grows above the clinical threshold again.
Treatment is kinda a genetic tautology: If it works you didn’t had a treatment resistant cancer, if not you did. Or: If you lose, you never had a chance.
People say this because it sounds right and dramatic, but if they knew and understood what cancer is, they'd understand why treating it is so hard.
For those unconvinced, cancer is your own bodies cells gone rogue and trying to kill you. Now, this happens all the time. Luckily, our immune system is awesome and catches it.
Cancer is when your immune system does not catch it. it's invisible, indistinguishable from your skin cells or your lung cells. Its not like the flu or pneumonia - there is no foreign body, there is no attacker. Its you.
So then treatment means we need to kill living, actively reproducing cells in the human body. Well, a fire can do that.
The trick is, how do you kill the cancer cells, which your own immune system cannot even distinguish as cancer cells, but not harm your normal cells?
Turns out that's very hard and very grueling. Chemo is very effective, but you still lose your hair and damage just about all your organs in the process.
And, for the record, we do have "one off" cures for cancer - surgery. Just cut it out. The trouble is cells are microscopic and there's billions of them. Rarely will they be so perfectly contained you can get them all in one go. No, you miss some, and they sit there, growing, until the cancer is detectable again. And they move, they use your own blood and lymphatic system as a highway.
Though this reads as though the implied message is preaching the suppressed cure conspiracy theory so I'll respond to that interpretation.
What you're missing the competitive factor of this. If your drug strings your patients along while your competitor releases an effective cure, guess who's getting all the business? Look to Sovaldi and Keytruda for recent examples.
I wish I could find the article, but there is a clinic somewhere that ran trials where they deliberately wouldn’t treat the cancer too aggressively. Instead they experimented with treatment frequency but with control being the aim instead of elimination.
The theory being that they could keep it at bay indefinitely and lower the chance of selection pressure kicking in. The thought behind their approach is that they wanted their patients to die of something different than their cancer.
The same logic applies to cancer cells that you seen in antibiotic resistance. The treatment kills the cancer cells on which it's most effective, leaving the most resistant. When it comes back, they're all going to be resistant.
yes they are resistant to that line of therapy once it stops working.
Sometimes that resistance carries over to other lines too. For example, Enzalutamide doesn't work for prostate cancer if you were already treated by abiraterone.
Once again, I am quite surprised by the sudden uptick of AI content on HN coming out of LANL. Does anyone know if its just getting posted to HN and staying on the first page suddenly, or is this a change in strategy for the lab? Even so, I don't see the other NatLabs showing up like this.
The primary pool of money for DOE labs is through a program called "Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence for Science, Security and Technology (FASST)," replacing the Exascale Computing Project. Compared to other labs, LANL historically does not have many dedicated ML/AI groups but they have recently spun up an entire branch to help secure as much of that FASST money as possible.
I imagine the mood at the national labs right now is pretty panicky. They will be looking to get involved with more real-world applications than they traditionally have been, and will also want to appear more engaged with trendy technologies.
I am not sure why HN has mostly LANL posts.
Otherwise though it is a combination of things. Machine learning applications for NATSec & fundamental research have become more important (see FASST, proposed last year), the current political environment makes AI funding and applications more secure and easier to chase, and some of this is work that has already been going on but getting greater publicity for both of those reasons.
Naming things is hard. Noting the two alternative approaches that you referenced are called "vecmap" and "alignment" which "aren't the first/only algorithm for ... and you have no right to claim such a general title" could easily apply there as well.
Except those papers are 8ish years old; they actually were among the first 2-3 algs for this task; and they studied the fully general vector space alignment problem. But I agree that naming things is hard and don't have a better name.
Under what conditions is it better to buy the assets and hire the employees instead of just change the name and product offering of the company? Is it just to get the investors off the cap table?