golli

Sadly I think Airbus is already busy as is. As far as I understand it, they were already supply constrainted before this and have their order books filled for years. Otherwise Boeing's most recent quality and safety issues would have had a larger effect.

I don't know if they could increase capacities even if they wanted to, or if a volatile situation like this would allow for the investments that would be necessary to do so.

Imo this just accelerates China's own ambitions to build up their own rival with Comac. This development makes the transition less gradual and they'll have to eat some losses, but that's something their system is capable of.

On the other hand it's actually worse for the US, because they'll miss out on those sales and might not be able to sell them somewhere else. With Boeing already struggling and this being a key industry, this will mean that it might require more subsidies in the future to keep them going or succeed in the turnaround.

Sadly that sounds like a likely explanation for a big chunk of textiles that a thrown away.

Swedes throw away 90,000 tonnes of textiles per year, or 10 kilogrammes (22 pounds) per person, according to the Swedish Society for the Conservation of Nature.

The EU average is 19 kilogrammes, according to 2022 statistics, up from 17 in 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed

Is it just me or does that sound extremely high? Especially for an average, meaning there are outliers to well above that figure.

Is there anything heavy that drives up those numbers that I can't think of? Or is there an industrial use that gets mixed into those numbers that you don't see as a consumer? Because I just can't imagine going through 10kg or even 19+kg of clothing per year.

As i understand it most of the money they are investing goes into new datacenters. So when a model gets outdone by a new one they still have those, unlike e.g. OpenAI that use other companies resources (i think microsoft and oracle mostly?). In a way companies that use those external clouds to train their own models are financing the investments needed for the big players.

AWS, GCP and Azure are all growing 30%+ yoy, are profitable and if anything supply constraint in that they can't build more capacity fast enough to meet demand. So it seems to me that to some degree they are already recouping some of those investments. I don't see a drop in demand for compute, and even if using/training ai would become less resource intensive, Jevons paradox would just lead to more demand.

Of course they also burn a lot of money as anytime a new model gets trained and beats the older ones, it kind of renders the resources spend on the previous one worthless. But to me that seems like the cost of doing business.

The current investments they can afford. What would actually lead to shedding huge amounts of marketcap is, if they'd let a rival establish themselves. Similar to how the movie studios didn't get into streaming early (mostly to not hurt their cable business) and gave Netflix enough time to establish themselves.

To comment on something you mentioned in another reply below:

I just don’t see a world where most people are coughing up more than $10 a month for AI.

I think the big money will be in the business world, where salaries for actual people are high enough that saving a person even a few hours/week or replacing a single employee saves so much money that even expensive subscriptions would easily be worth it.

On the consumer side as you say running smaller models locally will likely be the norm. But that means it would be free for both the likes of Deepseek and Google. And then it'll just come down to who has access to personal information and is better embedded, which would be likely be whoever also controls other aspects of a users life, such as Goole with Android, gmail etc. Money here will be made just as it is done with other free services.

The incumbents will go broke.

Who do you mean with that? Companies like OpenAI or Anthropic, or do you also include the likes of Google/Amazon/Microsoft?

With the former I can see it, but the later also profit from providing the infrastructure (and have other profitable business), so imo those will be just fine.

I am more surprised xAI investors approved. Especially for such a high price.

Twitter actually imo had (and still has) quite a bit of value, but that is only to further Elons ideological goals. As a business it is on a downward trend and was never a cash cow to begin with. Comparatively little room for speculation. It's a stagnating or declining business and doesn't generate large profits if any.

xAI on the other hand is pretty much in the same spot as most other ai companies. It has yet to prove to be a highly profitable business, but there is plenty of room for speculation. So as long as the bubble doesn't burst, it has a high valuation.

Which is all that would matter for any Twitter investor that wants to unload his shares. Although I doubt it would be via ipo, but rather in private funding rounds.

I find it's at least theoretically in the right spot for mass adoption. Something like a valve index or bigscreen vr paired with a strong gaming PC would of course offer a much better experience. But thats just not realistic for the masses.

Also Apple failed with their expensive premium device (although I guess it was always kind of a dev device sold to the masses).

It's certainly debatable, but at least for the price it offers a lot imo.

The quest exclusives are of course frustrating, but it makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, considering Meta is trying to position themselves as the VR platform (similar to say android with smartphones).

If you don't mind Meta/Facebook, then the oculus quest headsets are also very affordable hardware and deliver a good experience. I think the issue lies with content.

Smartphones or handhelds like the steam deck with flat screens could use plenty of already existing content made for screens. With VR you want different content that is made specifically for it. There is a decent amount of games (but still much fewer than for other devices), but honestly not that much more.

Additionally it also can only really be used at home, where most already have other devices.

It's a chicken and egg problem. But imo if there were more genuine unique productivity tasks and experiences available through VR, we would see more adoption.