Are you and I looking at the same thing? Huang is a human, in every way you and I are. If he took a DNA test it would say he's human. Right now he is a human having what is probably the worst week of his life. A pretty good life? Sure. But empathy isn't about weighing what he "deserves" or making arbitrary judgements about how he should feel in regards to the level of wealth & power he wields. The fact is he's a human being who is experiencing a lot of pain. You should feel empathy for him and for the people he's hurt. If you don't, maybe you're more like an LLM.
He's no saint, of course. That being said, he is human and he's going through a lot right now. Its easy to dismiss someone's struggle because he's wealthy and powerful, and because it is his own fault, but somewhere buried in this story there is a human person who is suddenly the center of a lot of very negative attention. It is not wrong to hope that he is okay.
I never said it is wrong to hope he is okay. I'm just choosing to put any hope I have to spare towards those caught in the collateral damage of this. You know, the unwitting victims.
Those who didn't make the decisions that led to this but are impacted by it. Those who trusted him, whether it be personally, emotionally, financially. Those who maybe saw him as a role model and are having that idea shattered because they can't reconcile the morality of his actions with their own worldview. Surely, plenty of kids and aspiring entrepreneurs looked up to him? What part of Jensen Huang should they model themselves after now?
I really wonder why there seems to be a proclivity to support one individual, evangelize one individual, and specifically mourn one individual's loss if the loss seems to largely be a creation of their own greed and ego. And to do so almost in defiance of acknowledging all of the other people that are caught up in it.
Shareholder primacy at the expense of everything else is a ridiculous and relatively new idea. There is no reason that it has to be that way other than that Milton Friedman thought it was a good optimization problem.
No, they can't. The lower tier chips exist pretty much entirely because they can be easily converted from the higher tier chips that are defective. Purpose-building a lower tier chip would be a ludicrously expensive thing to do, or else they'd already be doing that.
A fun example of this is Apple, who used to build three dies for each M-series generation (base, Pro, Max) but now build just two (base, Pro/Max). You'd think one of the most bespoke companies on the planet would not be moving to fewer dies unless there were very compelling reasons to do so.
It's really no different. They are selling you a product with X advertised specs, and indeed the specs you can access as the customer (at least out of the box) are those exact advertised specs.
"trusted providers" don't even need a backdoor, they just collect everything from you and whether you approved or not they're using that info to train the next model.
If their moat is their ability to create marginal improvements every few months by releasing new models, then that is an extremely expensive moat to maintain.
Ridiculous false dichotomy. The bureaucracy can get in the way sometimes, but ultimately it is about safety, and the FAA has done an amazing job over the past several decades regulating the skies and played a massive role in making aviation as safe as it is. Standards are rigid and very well defined and change slowly because aviation is an industry where mistakes create massive disasters. There is some collateral inefficiency from things moving slow but thats way preferable to the collateral damage that would be caused by "move fast break things".
Although you were generally right, you can't say that after the parties between Boeing and FAA agents, nor FAA using Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, fail inspections, still pass them, crash 4 planes and be humiliated by having Boeing Max flight permissions only revoked by the European authority. And the Macdonnell history with FAA says it is not new.
Macdonnell was bought by Boeing, and the legend says it's precisely this _expertise_ that Boeing bought. The Boeing self-burning batteries and wrongly-handcrafted airframes of 2013 are signature of Macdonnell's way of managing issues.
reply