Intel's finance chief David Zinsner said the firm did not expect to
bring in more cash than it spent this year, and forecast
lower-than-expected revenue for its fourth quarter.
You could have manufactured enough ARC video cards to meet demand. Going forward, you could manufacture solutions to bring local LLM options closer to affordability.If you're into manufacturing stuff people really want, that is.
I don't know if anyone told you, but GDDR is included in the current RAM shortage.
/s
[0] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/open...
And the oddest fear is precisely what will happen if we start trying to ramp up a bit of what used to be normal accountability?
Would you like to posit a theory? The article says nothing about this, and states entirely different causes. This concern seems rather tangential to recent market activity
In general it’s an earnings story though I agree.
Good news on that front is that political fighting typically evaporates with the campaigns. Bad news, of course, is that it typically comes back with them. So contracts have to be executed stupid quick.
Which flat out makes some things like the CHIPS act non-starters as long as we can't trust the next administration to give a good faith attempt at executing and honoring what came before.
Bidens CHIPS Act is still largely intact though isn't it? The next admin changed some things, renegotiated some implementation details, and even expanded parts of the subsidies. But I believe it is still moving forward at basically the same scale as was originally envisioned.
Uncertainty that just developed overnight?
> With the incredibly frustrating aspect that we can't really directly discuss exactly how corrupt a few of the main actors have been, to date.
What does that have to do with Intel, Amazon, and Google's financial results?
And where did you get the impression that no one can "discuss" any of this? A minute doesn't go by that someone isn't talking about Trump. Including you, regarding a completely unrelated topic.
In theory I understand their change to make search -> AI search instead, but I have a hard time believing that this was benchmarked in any way and not rushed to desperately remain relevant in the AI race.
Unless I'm searching for something very niche, I'm often quite surprised by how 'directionally right' Google's AI overview is, even if I retain a lot of the skepticism I had towards it.
> What is the equivalent focal length on APS-C of 80mm on full frame?
and get the correct answer. It's not good compared to frontier AI models, but that's to be expected, given that you don't pay for it.
Different experience for me, IMO AI mode saved Google search. The classic search became pretty much worthless due to decades of SEO winning over good results. But AI mode made Google search far more useful for me and gives me what I'm looking for 99.9% of the time.
I do understand some people (website operators who used to rely on SEO or google stockholders after the recent earnings report) being upset about AI mode, but as a search user I find it much more effective than where search was just prior to AI mode.