Different details, but the overall point is that a green card can be revoked instantly, and no evidence is required to do so.

You missed one
-If your beliefs "compromised U.S. foreign policy interests" according to allegations by the State Department with no evidence needed.

https://www.nyclu.org/commenta...

No. Primarily you're pimping for a troll, driving engagement and raising his prominence so that people pay more attention to him, and working to make half the threads on /. all about him, not the topic at hand. You're making even threads that he's not in about him.

But you are also yourself trolling.

Please go away. And stop engaging.

Not the same at all, no.

Incorrect. NVIDIA now owns a massive equity stake in OpenAI.
On top of that, they have also underwritten loans to them (much as an automaker loans you money for the car you buy from them).
They have *also*, on top of that, given them written guarantees (similar to a loan, but you don't pay unless the other party defaults) but the business sense for that one is obvious- the potential revenue from chip sales will be 7 times the guarantee amount.

You, like dude above, are just regurgitating the musings of morons on the internet.
It's easy for a layman to say, "omg, NVIDIA is PAYING OpenAI to buy its chips! that's insane!" but it is, for the umpteenth time, completely normal in business.

The risk for vendor financing is that it makes it difficult for investors to truly assess risk. Everyone is aware of this. The market is generally unphased by it, right or wrong.
Like Lucent back in the 90s, who lent my company money to buy their routers, this shit can go terribly wrong if the purchasers go bust. NVIDIA stock will literally catch on fire and burn to ash. Of course, it could also just end up being like any one of the literally hundreds of different large industries with strong vendor financing.
Time will tell. Either way, you're no fucking Oracle of Omaha, and it isn't a circle jerk.

There's a difference between that... and... what?
Sentence get cut off?
Either way- wrong.

Complete nonsense.
You're exchanging money for ownership in a company, or to create demand where that demand is expected to produce future profits as well.
Don't take this personally, but I really don't think you're smart enough to be trying to overthink this shit.

You need to quit regurgitating the musings of every moron you see on YouTube. It'd do you a lot of good.
It is perfectly normal for a company to invest in an indirect customer of its.
That accounts for literally most of Intel's acquisitions.

You really are too stupid to be having this conversation.

Even if they don't pollute all the time, consider when a "power emergency" will be most likely. One common situation is when there is a stagnant heat dome sitting on the area forcing everyone to crank up their A/C.

Then the data centers will fire up their gas and diesel generators with short exhaust stacks, and with no wind all those fumes will just linger in the general vicinity.

Money comes back to your company by many routes of different lengths.
Shorter lengths are faster, obviously.
But it's also completely normal.
Investing in your customers (even to the point of sometimes buying them, which is just fancy speak for "investing until there are no more shares to buy") is not some kind of crazy thing that is new or bad.
Of course- some very high profile circular financing arrangements have exploded spectacularly- but far more often, they're just already there, undergirding systems you consider stable.

Your Roomba analogue is perhaps more spot on than you realize.
You see, I did throw away my broom. I just adapted by running my Roomba multiple times in a row (in loops?)

Wait until I tell you how the economy works.

"Circular Financing" (today's rebrand of vendor financing) is just an accelerant. Like all accelerants, what you accelerate and what your goals for it are what matters.
"Circular Financing" is not remotely abnormal.

Does it bother you in the slightest that shit like this comes from researchers employed by the hype-mongers, and meanwhile independent researchers find nothingburger after nothingburger?

I think you're drowning in kool-aid. You come off as someone telling me how cigarettes don't cause cancer, as researchers have shown for decades.

I say this as someone who has been developing LLM harnesses for going on 5 years now.

Gee, if a counterfeit lithium ion battery peddled by Amazon burns your house down, you get to sort it out in small claims court.

Or else let some guy whose salary ultimately comes from Amazon decide whether they're liable.

Nazis... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And it's bad enough as it is.

What gets modded insightful or Troll around here is also very much a matter of trends.

I've been here long enough to be on both sides twice. What went for humor once becomes a troll or iinsightful and back.

It is what it is when people are involved.

Not sure what your point is, but let me phrase this differently.

Even assuming that DEI hires do exist, from the data, the number of non-black people who failed to be hired for professorships in England because a black person was hired instead is 1%. So, if all DEI hiring of black people didn't exist, the number of non-black people hired would increase by a factor of 1.01.

This is a small effect.