Looking at the market cap of Nvidia vs their competitors the market belives it is, considering they just lost more than AMD/Intel and the likes are worth combined and still are valued at $2.9 billion.
And with technology i mean both the performance of their hardware and the software stack they’ve created, which is a big part of their dominance.
I have to disagree with that, because this solution isn’t free either.
Asking them to regulate their use requires them to build excess capacity purely for those peaks (so additional machinery), to have more inventory in stock, and depending on how manual labor intensive it is also means people have to work with a less reliable schedule. With some processes it might also simply not be able to regulate them up/down fast enough (or at all).
This problem is simply a function of whether it is cheaper to a) build excess capacity or b) build enough capacity to meet demand with steady production and add battery storage as needed.
Compared to most manufacturing lines battery tech is relatively simple tech, requries little to no human labor and still makes massive gains in price/performance. So my bet is that it’ll be the cheaper solution.
That said it is of course not a binary thing and there might be some instances where we can optimize energy demand and supply, but i think in the industry those will happen naturally through market forces. However this won’t be enough to smooth out the gap difference in the timing of supply/demand.
It’s a reaction to thinking China has better AI
I don’t think this is the primary reason behind Nvidia’s drop. Because as long as they got a massive technological lead it doesn’t matter as much to them who has the best model, as long as these companies use their GPUs to train them.
The real change is that the compute resources (which is Nvidia’s product) needed to create a great model suddenly fell of a cliff. Whereas until now the name of the game was that more is better and scale is everything.
China vs the West (or upstart vs big players) matters to those who are investing in creating those models. So for example Meta, who presumably spends a ton of money on high paying engineers and data centers, and somehow got upstaged by someone else with a fraction of their resources.
I meant success in the context of what a dating app should achieve: Matching suitable partners.
But you are of course right that for the company success is profit and the rest are just variables to be optimized towards that goal.
I would say yes, because as is the real niche communities dont have the size for larger discussions.
Mainstream communities e.g. about global news already have a decent size. And in many ways it doesn’t make much of a qualitative difference if there are 500 or 10.000 predictable comments. But many smaller communities are still mostly propped up by a few power users providing the majority of content which is not ideal for many reasons.
Also regarding cost: I have yet to hear how a dating app solves the paradox that success means losing a customer. The incentives of the company and customer are not aligned and actually quite the opposite.
The company wants you to stay and spend as much as possible on the platform (optimizing to keep you just engaged enough to stick with it), whereas the ideal outcome for the customer means not needing the app in as little time as possible.
To drive home that point even further
More than 89 percent of counties in the United States shifted in favor of former President Donald J. Trump in the 2024 presidential election
[…] the 2024 results showed that all 50 states had shifted right.
Existing one or on a topic of my choice?
If I had to teach an existing one it would probably be sport, since as a reasonably fit person with a decent understanding on how to train in a healthy way it would probably be the one where I could come closest to providing a similar level to a real teacher. Otherwise maybe sociology? Think I could do a decent job there aswell.
If I could make my own it would probably be personal finance. Because I think here in Germany education on this topic is basically non existent. And there is so much money wasted on bad financial products and wrong decisions, that giving everyone some basic lessons would have a huge positive effect.
The issue is that the same people that would lose votes from doing so would have to change the system. Which obviously means they have no incentive to do so.
That might certainly be one factor, but my intuition is that the primary driver is still todays diet. Things like soda drinks that let you consume teaspoons of pure sugar in an instant without appropriate feedback simply didn’t exist in the past.
To play devil’s advocate they probably aren’t just doing it to gain favor, but also to avoid harm.
Trump is definitely petty enough to hold a grudge and go after whoever doesn’t cozy up to him.
This actually is a hard question. I assume it needs to be an industry that is small, doesn’t have huge margins and probably is primarily manual labour.
Maybe something like blacksmithing?
I never really understood the purpose of the XPS line anyway.
The issue here is that you are comparing it to their business lineup, while it was a consumer product.
Dell XPS (“Extreme Performance System”) is a line of consumer-oriented laptop and desktop computers manufactured by Dell since 1993.
My understanding is that it was their premium consumer line sitting above the more entry level Inspiron line.
Imo this kind of shows the basic problem with the xps line. As I understand it it was basically the premium consumer line, not something meant for business use. Meaning it had the nice specs on paper, but not the durability you’d need in a setting with extensive use and where downtime means serious money. But as you demonstrate this distinction was too blurry.
Yeah, sadly everything has to sound fancy. Imo this is partially to blame on consumers, but I do wonder how much of it is basic psychology vs induced demand that could be reversed if a company would stick with sensible product names for a while.
Instead of basic they could also go with something like “essential” or “home” that maybe have slightly less negative associations.
At that length it seems more aimed towards business trips rather than tourists.
In fairness to Intel, every modern semi design house has that same issue: a chip is designed and laid out for a specific node, so this isn’t really a failing so much as a how-it-works.
I thought i read somewhere that either their design was particularly tailored towards a specific node or that following that they made it a higher priority to be less bound to one. But i can’t find a source for it, so i might be mistaken.
Trying to do 10nm without EUV was a forgivable error
How so? Literally no one uses EUV for 10nm and this wasn’t the problem. Isn’t SMCI even pushing DUV toproducing 5nm?
My limited understanding is that they were too ambitious with e.g. using cobalt interconnects and at the same time had the issue that they tied their chip designs to specific nodes. Meaning that when the process side slipped they couldnt just take the design and use it on a different node without a lot of effort.
Also I think they were always going to lose apple at some point. With better products they might have delayed it further. But apple fundamentally has an interest in vertical integration and control. And they were already designing processors for their phones and tablets.
You could even go as far as changing the “will” to “is”, looking at how much Tesla’s stock recently gained due to the forward looking nature of the market.
I have to concede that point to some degree, since i guess i hold similar views with Tesla’s value vs the rest of the automotive Industry. But i still think that the basic hirarchy holds true with nvidia being significantly ahead of the pack.
Imo you are too optimistic with those estimations, particularly with Intel and China, although i am not an expert in the field.
As i see it AMD seems to have a quite decent product with their instinct cards in the server market on the hardware side, but they wish they’d have something even close to CUDA and its mindshare. Which would take years to replicate. Intel wish they were only a year behind Nvidia. And i’d like to comment on China, but tbh i have little to no knowledge of their state in GPU development. If they are “2 years, probably less” behind as you say, then they should have something like the rtx 4090, which was released end of 2022. But do they have something that even rivals the 2000 or 3000 series cards?
But the issue is they all make their chips at the same manufacturer, TSMC, even Intel in the case of their GPUs. So they can’t really differentiate much on manufacturing costs and are also competing on the same limited supply. So no one can offer 80% of performance at 10% price, or even close to it. Additionally everything around the GPU (datacenters, rack space, power useage during operation etc.) also costs, so it is only part of the overall package cost and you also want to optimize for your limited space. As i understand it datacenter building and power delivery for them is actually another limiting factor right now for the hyperscalers.
Google yes with their TPUs, but the others all use Nvidia or AMD chips to train. Amazon has their Graviton CPUs, which are quite competitive, but i don’t think they have anything on the GPU side. DeepSeek is way to small and new for custom chips, they evolved out of a hedge fund and just use nvidia GPUs as more or less everyone else.