The strategy of grabbing companies with big budgets by the balls has worked for Oracle for a long, long time. Ellison has been swapping back and forth with Musk as "world's richest man" lately.

As a result, the district's migration from VMware is taking IT resources from other projects

THEN STOP USING IT!

Do you understand that "migration from VMWare" is synonymous with stopping using it?

Migrating away is a process that requires a lot of work, which means it is "taking IT resources from other projects."

I have a remarkable amount of power, But apparently I act badly.

I know a lot of powerful people, some are not particularly good, most are actually decent. I know a loot of poor people, some are good, some are evil I'm not trying to act judgmentally, , but is judging people you have never met the mark of a good person that does good things?

Prejudice is not my metric.

You judge with out knowing. I wait until I meet a person. Explain how your prejudice is good, and my judgement based on personality and actions is bad.

When there are billions of dollars on the line, that is going to draw some very, very well-resourced attacks. I don't know if that's what happened here, or if Jaguar's defenses and mitigation plans were just THAT bad. But making a public example this disastrous, of a company that well-known, is like a huge shot in the arm to the extortion industry.

Apropos of leadership accountability...

You know it's bad when those raging communists at Forbes think that your board structure is just shockingly incestuous.

They sell, Xbox, accessories, mice, keyboards. Their surface revenue is now around $7B. They also had a multi billion dollar hololens business (which obviously they are now exiting). For those Datacentres they are both the customer AND the developer, the hardware is mostly custom specs and boards similar to how Google and AWS do it, they develop the machines then farm out their production to vendors.

Microsoft IS a hardware company, despite most of their money coming from software they have massive investment in hardware development that dwarfs most purely hardware oriented companies. Hardly suprising considering the hundreds of billions they spend on Datacenters and servers.

That tells us what their prejudices are. There is a strange tendency of the modern left wing crowd to demand continual re-defining words, and using weasel words. If a person believes that progress is making everyone's pay the same, they should say it without obfuscation.

note: there is a problem with huge income disparities. I don't care what Elon Musk makes, but it enrages some people.

note2: the redistribution of wealth is nothing new. The Democrats were calling for that in the mid-70's. The brought us Ronald Reagan.

You are correct. Of course, we have to decide which direction society should go. I've seen enough right wing evil. But them I've seen plenty of left wing evil as well. How does one find balance?

The big question for me at least is it is pretty common for Slashdotters to state that anyone in leadership positions are evil psychopaths, and that the lower on the ladder, the more worthy a person is.

As a CEO, I am apparently evil, and the cause of all problems. I'm certainly called an asshole often enough. Any pure people willing to take my position?

So, we have a problem. How do pure people displace all the evil people? This sounds in the end like the proletariat seizing the means of production, and installing a communist government. Would you prefer living in Stalinist Russia, Mao's Communist China, or under Pol Pot? Or under Trump, as bad as he might be? If people think I am a psychopath, I can say I never had millions killed, caused a huge famine famine killing millions, or had pol's killing grounds

That's a rhetorical, but let's assume that anyone with ambition must be kept out of power. How do we do this? Might have to kill us. But then someone with no ambition from the bottom of the ladder can fill our places.

I hope that sounded silly. It sorta was. There is a reason that people with ambition tend to rise. And despite what so many commenters in here think, we are not all evil. Yes, some are. But so are some at the bottom of the ladder. Elizabeth Holmes is evil, so is the guy working a minimum wage job who goes home and beats his wife.

We are in an age of maximum prejudice. And history shows, that never works out well

The whole present business model is screwy. The whole idea of re-commisioning nuclear rfeactors in order to have them supply power to AI is kinda telling. So you need 819 Megawatts (TMI unit 1 output) in order to power AI. Just curious - are you going to need to boil the Susquehanna River to cool these data centers? That's going to be a lot of pretty concentrated heat that needs dissipated.

Point is, this business as they are looking at it isn't the proper path. Maybe it is early on in AI, but if it requires that much power, in that many places - it won't work.

The concepts exist - now refine them, and maybe move beyond the over the top attempts at implementation.

And what more are we going to do with them. Mostly so far, I've seen AI as a way to make web searches relevant to my search terms, not just useless links normal, now useless Web Search gives. (try DDG AI answers)

Even if AI saves a lot of labor the people developing the AI have to find a way to monetize it.

For example a mechanical engineer making $150 K / year it's not uncommon to pay maybe $7500 for CATIA.

For a stock trader it's about $30K / year for a Bloomberg terminal.

Or maybe it will be like operating an MRI scanner which is $5 million to buy, and the MRI technologist who operates it makes $88K / year.

Or a mining dumptruck that costs $7M and the driver is paid $80K.

Nobody knows where this ratio will end up for any number of jobs to be impacted by AI.

I don't know it's anything with the plane, the F35-C first launched from the land-based testing version of the electric catapult back in 2011:

http://defensetech.org/2011/11...

and has been taking off from carriers with steam catapults for over a decade

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I can see the argument that Nvidia has no obvious advantage in LLMs that would make them want to set up their own operation; it's basically everything else about the situation that would make me jumpy if I had bet on Nvidia.

"Investing $100 billion in OpenAI's spend $100 billion on Nvidia stuff initiative" sounds, at worst, like a slightly more legal version of the trick where you shuffle stock around between business units or stuff the channel and book that as sales because you suspect that your real sales numbers will disappoint; and, even if it's not quite that dire, Nvidia being willing to get paid in faith rather than in other people's money (or shift the stock to one of their customers that actually has money) looks very much like an indirect price cut, which gives the impression that either demand is outright softening, and Nvidia has units that it can't simply immediately shift to customers who are actually paying cash right now; or that Nvidia feels the need to help fill the gap between OpenAI's seemingly unlimited appetite for doubling-down money and the, sooner or later, limited supply of VC nose candy.

That said, it's not entirely novel; Nvidia's current holdings are something like 90% Coreweave(under 10% of Coreweave's total shares; but Coreweave shares are the bulk of other-company shares Nvidia holds); and they have an agreement with them obliging them to purchase any unused capacity through 2032; so they've been expressing confidence in AI-related companies and/or trying to keep the music going by paying some of their more fragile customers' bills even before this.

It could be that Nvidia isn't even trying to diversify; but the history of bad things happening when people underestimate correlated risks also doesn't make me feel great about the situation: Obviously it's going to be a bad day at Nvidia if 'AI' cools; stock price will take a hit and they will be left holding at least some inventory and TSMC and other vendor commitments; but it's going to be a worse day the more of their hardware they sold in exchange for stock in 'AI' Nvidia buyers, rather than in exchange for money, since the fortunes of those companies are going to be fairly closely correlated with Nvidia's own, albeit likely to swing harder and have further to fall.

My guess is this was done right after ChatGPT hit and it just didn't occur to them that it might make up citations.

Why? I doubt the lawyer took this risk intentionally or will be doing it again. It sends the message clearly, you are responsible for your legal filings, regardless of the tools you might use.