Lovely! Thankfully no one (AFAIK) has done a similar work with Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon Deluxe... Otherwise I would be easily spending tens of hours playing it. One of the games I have loved the most in my life!
Whoa, didn't realize that was Jony Ive! Good job Jony! Gave both Ferrari and EVs bad press with a single product launch!
A good lesson in not messing with a good thing. If they had just put an electric motor in a classic Ferrari body, it could have been a nice moment for the energy transition.
hm, I don't have any other ways to prove it. The thing is - I thought this is something LLM can't write about.
Just imagine a prompt: "Hey Claude, go ahead and come up with idea why GnuCash stores numbers as fractions and come up with an article for HN". I actually tried it and god damn thing came up with something very similar :D
That's what I'm saying though. They must be getting something out of this deal, otherwise why would they be going through with it?
The explanation that this is just financial engineering (which to me, means neither Google nor SpaceX is getting anything out of this other than looking better on paper) doesn't make sense to me. How does this financial engineering benefit Google?
Even if they have an exit option, why is Google (a private, separate, self-interested firm) giving a single dollar to SpaceX if the deal isn't mutually beneficial?
They’re getting compute. There was a free for all period when xAI did one smart thing and that’s build like there’s no tomorrow. Because tomorrow is today, and today jurisdictions are racing to pause datacenter construction.
This deal can't just be financial engineering, since that wouldn't make sense. They must be getting something out of this, i.e. compute.
Google is buying compute because they need it. That explanation works a lot better to me than one where Google is doing this purely for unrealized future gains on a minority stake in SpaceX.
the ironic thing is if the parties involved were bullish on xAI winning or near term ODCs undercutting compute costs this deal wouldn't have been attractive. But as it is, Google probably only slightly overpays for boring ground-based datacenter space they actually need to hit internal goals, and it looks even better if IPO investors in a stock they hold pick up some of the the tab.
That $5 return doesn't actually materialize the way you're framing it.
Even if your 94x multiple held perfectly (a big if), Google's "return" here is unrealized appreciation on an illiquid, minority stake. They can't spend it. And if they try to sell post-IPO, the act of selling a large block would push the price down, shrinking the very gains you're describing.
Meanwhile, the $11B/year in cash going out the door is very real and liquid and hits Google's income statement immediately. So the actual trade is: guaranteed cash expense now, in exchange for speculative paper gains later on a stake they can't easily exit. Even if you assume bad faith on Google's part here, no CFO in their right mind would see this situation as an easy 5:1 return.
The simpler explanation is the one Google gave: they need bridge compute capacity because Gemini Enterprise demand is outrunning their own datacenter buildout, and SpaceX has 110K GPUs available now.
So you think Google is going to spend $11B in hopes it will boost the value of the SpaceX stock, while pretending to public investors it's a multi-year thing, and then after 1yr sell off their SpaceX stock after the value rises while also ending the contract early?
they're spending $11B on compute because they need the compute and that's the market rate for it. it's the same price Anthropic is paying to spacex for compute.
but if they boost the spacex stock for the right amount of time, they can get that compute for free instead of for $11B. Google's own announcement of the deal frames it as a short-term agreement while they scale up their own datacenter capacity.
Mx Extreme = 2 x Mx Ultra = more cores. (Opportunity: processor chiplets could be designed to integrate in higher quantities.)
Increase RDMA cross-bar linking from 4x to 8x = a lotta ports, a switch, or a stacking interface.
Regular RAM size/speed scaling: 512GB -> 1TB Mac Studios. Wider RAM and RDMA paths * clocks.
Given the low power envelope of today's Mac Studios, and bandwidth limits, lots of room to scale up, if Apple chooses. My fantasy: 2x cores, 2x RAM sizes, 2x RDMA devices, 2-4x RAM & RMDA bandwidth.
I absolutely LOVED learning SQL on PostgreSQL, roughly 26-27 years ago (so, close to the 30 years cited there). I think I still retain at least 70-80% of all the knowledge I built back then, and it is the case probably because the way in which I learned was by DOING.
reply