AMD already has a stock price that reflects their whole bag of products. TW stock price is effectively zero for a pre listed VC investment, TW is a cloud service bet not a chip bet (ie higher up stack = more value), TW is AI only.
TensorWave doesn't compete with Nvidia but with CoreWeave. I bet they might even have the same founder lol.
CoreWeave is doing the same stuff but with Nvidia. Also using collateral. But CoreWeave did it last year when H100 was way more valuable for collateral than it is today. And CoreWeave has actually been backed up by Nvidia and Microsoft in some funding rounds.
For Nvidia HW there are like 10x as many AI startups doing what TensorWave is doing. TensorWave is going a more risky way to go with AMD instead of Nvidia. Being among few startups might give them a large benefit but it also depends a lot on AMD support in the SW field. I wouldn't bet on that, especially not with AMD HW as collateral.
Atari needs to help itself first. What a great example of having something amazing at the right time and burning it all down. Do the research- its a crazy spiral.
I like the Army guys. Since they are the ones getting killed on the ground- they are far more inclined to go with products that just work and get the job done.
Unlike the airforce - that has a huge budget and an arsenal of all sorts of hardware from B2s to b1s to drones to f22s, b52s, list goes on.
Remind me again what happened in Afghanistan?
Apache, a10, mh6, ac130. These were the workhorses and of course reapers.
Afghanistan/Taliban didn't have a functional air defence network nor where they technologically near-peer.
The A10 is amazing for CAS in that environment but against anyone tooled up by the russians/chinese with modern SAM's it'd be a different picture.
Now..whether the USAF needs both given that everything they've done for most of the last 40 years has been that type of air support is an interesting question, they like to have high tech toys which is why the A29 isn't apparently going anywhere.
Air superiority doesn't mean that ground-based air defenses are all eliminated, or even that the enemy's air force is completely defeated. Nor is there any guarantee that air superiority will be gained quickly. In WW2, the allies didn't achieve air superiority until early 1944, and while by D-Day they outnumbered the Luftwaffe 10:1, they still lost 10% of their aircraft between June 6th and June 30th. The Luftwaffe was still shooting allied planes down as late as May 8, 1945.
In a modern conflict, CAS aircraft like the A10 would be vulnerable to MANPADs, AA guns, and SAMs which could all be hidden for extended periods of time in bunkers and caves, and would continue to be produced by peer adversaries for pretty much the entirety of the war. Even late in the war, manned CAS would require fighter escort, which effectively limits their dwell time and availability to that of the fighters. By the time the CAS can really do their thing, the war is essentially already won.
Which near peer would that be? The US military industrial complex is gearing up for a conflict with China to control Western Pacific islands, where any CAS will have to be provided by carrier aircraft or long-range land based bombers. The A-10 can't even get there.
According to this site, there are numerous areas of Pakistan with a wet-bulb temp well north of 35C...that seems extremely dire, and should probably not be flippantly dismissed because other places are hotter.
> Stop complaining about the hot weather please and focus on more pressing global issues.
What would those more pressing issues be? Soon enough many very populated places in the world will be unlivable. Even now the reality described in the piece is shocking - 330 GBP for a month's worth of power is way more than what I pay in the Netherlands during the coldest winter months. I imagine the vast majority of Pakistanis will never be able to afford the amount of electricity needed to cool their houses down to a bearable temperature.
This comment was dead, and I expect it to be unpopular (the sentiment always is) - but I'm vouching for it because by linking some data it's at least as substantive as the submission, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.
> This article isn’t about the temperature reaching 44 C for a single day.
Well this is the only actual data point it makes reference to, it links to a study which makes claims about 50 years in the future, which may contain some data, but that is thrice removed if it does.
==Well this is the only actual data point it makes reference to==
I don't see anywhere in the article where it makes this reference, it's just in the headline. The article actually says "When it’s above 44C it feels like you’re going to die – I’m not making that up."
==Now it goes above 40C on an average day==
A reference to the consistency of the heat as opposed to the extremes of the heat.
“Wuhan lab leak” is a far more realistic & plausible story than “animal market is actual source that sits next to a gain of function lab doing unknown research on corona virus”
Many academics have been a proponent of the leak theory, whats shocking is not the press picking it up now, rather how quickly it was discarded before.
Please don't add fire to the FUD. The lab research is neither unknown nor secret. Not only are there published research papers from their work but the WHO have also been there and seen the work and research they do. It might or might not be the source -I won't comment on that- but unknown it is not.
Did your comments back then add anything interesting that everyone else didn't already know or did you just fling mud at the wall? I absolutely did and still do down vote posts that try to point fingers without proof, no matter if it is for or against.
You and I both know that certain ideas just could not be entertained in any way shape or form. It had little to do with proof. And what would this proof look like exactly? We are all reading the same internet bs for the last year. All anyone could do was speculate, and certain speculations were off the table for political reasons. Discussion was shut down and now it's already been shown to backfire. You are trying to retroactively justify your agreement to silence certain opinions, which is wrong, dangerous, and you should be ashamed.
I'm not ashamed to not take part in the conspiracy theories and racism that is a part of all of these lab leak discussions and behind many of the comments. I see the situation the direct opposite than you: I have added proof to discussions about the virus and every single time it has been heavily downvoted if it wasn't anti-china or pro lab-leak. Only when adding sources that prove I'm right do HN stop downvoting (but of course by then most have moved on which is why it ends up in one-use account discussions). The ideas that couldn't and still can't be discussed is truth that doesn't agree with what most Americans believe and that haven't changed at all.
As it is now we have a huge majority in these discussions that believe that because we haven't found where the virus came from it must be from a lab for the simple reason that almost everyone "know" that we found the source in a few months last time (SARS-CoV) while in reality we have still not found the source after 15 years of hard work.
On top of that these discussions are political in nature when it becomes anti-china or pro-US or whatever and by then should be downvoted.
It is obvious to anyone that is truly objective that _anything_ to make Trump look bad was going to be pushed hard by the media during that time. He, like it or not, brought the lab leak to the forefront of mind and was summarily dismissed because the media couldn't stand him.
It's all up for debate now, but the wildlife hypothesis gains its plausibility from the similarity of SARS-CoV2's similarity to coronaviruses in pangolins sold in China's wildlife trade. The wild animal/bushmeat trade is considered responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak as well as HIV, so it's certainly plausible it spread through wet markets (although probably not the specific Wuhan wet market it was initially discovered in).
TBH, the lab leak hypothesis should seem less damaging to the Chinese government's reputation than the wet market hypothesis. On one hand, you have an isolated failure of lab safety protocols, on the other, you have decades of government support of wild animal trade despite mountains of evidence for its risk of zoonotic disease outbreak, not to mention environmental costs.
