I think Huang's departure was a mistake. Nvidia still has CUDA and a hell of an engineering team. What it loses is the guy who backed GPU computing when that was a much harder sell. Based on what's public, I'd have tried to keep him, put any conflicted personnel decisions in someone else's hands, and let the independent directors finish their investigation.

I'd be more worried about where Jensen lands next. Whether he joins another company or starts his own, somebody gets a guy who's already shown he can spot a market early and get developers to build for it. Nvidia could pay for this twice: once to replace him, and again to compete with him.

Even if Trump were to be completely exonerated in the Epstein files, fueling speculation by keeping them secret forms an excellent diversion from his real crime, subverting the Constitution he swore to protect

If pussy is Jensen's kryptonite, maybe the board should stop treating him like Superman. The part of the Times report that makes this Nvidia's business is the reporting line. If the relationship is confirmed, was it disclosed? Who signed off on his direct report's pay and promotions? A hotel video won't answer either question.

Nvidia's board announced an independent inquiry into the separate intelligence allegations. I'd like to know who's looking into this one and whether employees can talk to them without going through Huang's chain of command. If company security offered a witness an NDA, as reported, I'd also want to know who authorized it. Publishing a code of conduct is the easy part. This is where the board earns its keep.

Except now people are enabling the obsequious sycophant bots to make purchases for them - the ad industry is just adapting to the change in demographics.

They bought Atlas a pair of roller shoes

The security issue I see is leverage. If a government department can't function after a supplier suspends an account, changes its terms, or gets an order from another government, that's a serious dependency. Everything could be fully patched and working exactly as designed. The question is who gets to decide whether your essential services keep running.

"Democratic and transparent patterns" sounds lovely, but I'd start with the purchasing contracts. Require usable data exports, documented interfaces, and an exit plan somebody has actually tested. Pay for the staff needed to make that possible. If moving suppliers takes five years and the only person who understands the system retired, another declaration about European values won't get you very far.

The 8tx is the interesting one to me. The useful promise of confidential computing is protecting a customer's running workload even from the infrastructure hosting it. That's a worthwhile feature for renting somebody else's computer. I'd want to know exactly what customers can verify before handing over their keys: which software is running, what hardware is trusted, and whether protection covers the whole CPU-to-TPU path.

The application inside that protected environment still gets to use the data, though. If it logs your documents or an agent sends them to the wrong service, encrypted memory won't save you. You can run a data leak inside a perfectly secure enclave. I like seeing this capability become part of accelerator design, but the software handling the inputs and outputs deserves just as much scrutiny as the chip.

Truth

No dancing animations or pop-ups continuously blocking the content, how unfashionable

"Compute Campus", so still committed to deluding the public.

Not necessarily evil, MAGA held a strong appeal to the genuinely stupid as well

It's all part of Commie-Canada's master plan to cripple America's tech industry and make the U.S. Canada's 13th Provence.

Getting a second useful job out of the most expensive part of an EV makes sense. If I'm already buying the truck, a reasonably priced way to keep the fridge and lights running is a pretty appealing extra, but the roughly $650 figure needs some context. Ford says outage backup also requires its Home Backup Power Panel. Then there's installation. Moving the inverter into the truck is a useful saving, but I'd want the complete installed quote before comparing this with other backup options. There's another detail in Ford's announcement: peak-rate energy management requires an active plan or trial. What's that going to cost? A recurring fee belongs in the calculation alongside conversion losses and additional battery cycling. Making the hardware affordable is a good start; the electricity savings still have to survive the subscription bill.

So say those who don't care about being understood or being taken seriously. Those who value what they have to communicate care that it's readable

The detail that jumps out in PHP's advisory is that the demonstrated mod_php exploit can trigger before any application code runs. Your application's login screen and carefully written input validation never get a vote. Under those circumstances, a PHP-generated "down for maintenance" page could still leave you exposed. Taking a site offline while sorting that out seems entirely reasonable. An outage is visible and embarrassing, which makes it easy to criticize. A compromised server might keep serving perfectly normal pages while somebody helps themselves to the data. The fixed releases are now available. What I'd want to hear afterward is how quickly each organization could identify its PHP installations and get the fixes deployed. If answering "where do we run this?" requires an emergency meeting and somebody's old spreadsheet, there's another problem waiting for the next advisory.