You say that as if a lottery assigns companies what product they shall make. Or that they found their product designs in a kinder egg.
They had an idea which they thought will be valuable. And they worked bery hard on making that idea a reality.
People complain that companies don’t have leadership with long term vision. The leadership of NVIDIA heard the idea of GGPU computation and put the resources behind the idea to make it a practical reality. Here the gap between “nerdy idea” to “product sells like hot-cakes”, is measured in decades. That is not just luck.
Finding yourself making matrix multiplication machines for computer graphics, then suddenly an unrelated technological revolution requires that exact hardware?
This is survivorship bias. Show me a Jobs-like track record and then we can talk business genius. This guy had 1 at bat and (to mix sports metaphors) we don't know if he skated to where the puck was heading, or if the market happened to converge on this thing because it was available.
Also, your comment has a hefty dose of survivorship bias. Lots of companies have long term visions they think will be valuable, and work very hard towards making them a reality. Few succeed. You're counting the survivors, not the attempts.
Furthermore, you fail to demonstrate that a different CEO of NVIDIA would have done something different.
This take is crazy; NVIDIA not only built the GPU, *they created the demand.* For a very long time there was nothing like CUDA. They're working on an open-source self-driving car. Back when they were a gaming company, they sponsored the gaming ecosystem.
Jensen Huang cheated on his wife AND conspired to evade arms control regulations, but he's still a genius.
What are you're doing in your comment is a fallacy known in economics called survivorship bias.
The NVIDIAs of the world are vastly outnumbered by corporations who made a long term bet that failed, but because you're counting the successes, not the attempts, you see vastly inflated outcomes. Count the attempts to make these long shots, and Huang appears very lucky indeed. Crystal ball? Hardly! He couldn't forsee the outcome of 3 (is it still 3, or has the body count grown) affairs.
To prove Huang is a genius, you'd have to demonstrate that a different CEO of NVIDIA would have done something different.
NVIDIA is 33 years old! How much more successful does the largest corporation in the world have to be for you to admit some skill was required? Another two decades?
> Crystal ball? Hardly! He couldn't forsee the outcome of 3 (is it still 3, or has the body count grown) affairs.
Fortunately, I'm not claiming that Huang is a genius at getting away with affairs. I'm claiming that if any CEO can be called a genius at running their business, Huang can.
I'm not saying Huang is skill-less, and by making that claim in your comment, you are moving the goalposts. I am saying it is not obvious that he would have done genius-level better than a different CEO.
Your best claim is that Nvidia is the biggest company in the world; therefore Huang is a genius. Maybe; some days Apple is also in the running for biggest company in the world. By your metric Tim Cook is therefore a genius. This makes me seriously doubt your metric.
GrapheneOS and iPhones are generally more secure and therefore private than desktop OSes. The idea that phones are inherently worse for privacy is wrong. You can use them in airplane mode to avoid sharing your location with carriers.
The apps you use, sure, those are also optional, but using those same apps on a desktop would give them even more information about you and more power over your system.
Your phone also still collects a record of your GPS data, and that history gets transmitted back the moment you have a connection. Your phone can also still be tracked via bluetooth while in airplane mode. That's also how "find my device" works when your phone in airplane mode. WiFi data can also be collected while in airplane mode.
Airplane mode is basically a lie. It's prevents the transmission of certain specific signals from your device, but that's about it.
My desktop computer does not follow me around everywhere. I can be assured I am not being tracked by it by not being in the same location. If I have to leave my phone behind in order to ensure I am not being surveilled, then it begs the question: why do i need a phone in the first place?
>> The idea that phones are inherently worse for privacy is wrong.
Phones will always be worse for privacy. They are festooned with microphones, cameras and a variety of radios. The PC I am using to type this doesn't have any of those things.
Countercounterpoint: by participating in this ecosystem which is ad-subsidized, you legitimize it via network effects, contributing to a shittier world for all, even if you yourself block the ads. I don't want the be the target of someone else's AR glasses, and I shouldn't have to give up being in public to accomplish that.
The research and industrial pipeline would be ad-subsidized, in Schlagbohrer's account, because it starts with Meta/Alphabet/etc proving the market and establishing demand for microdisplays (and other components). This gives the knock-off market a target to optimize until the components are cheap enough that some small business sets up an open hardware glasses kit on crowdsupply for Schlagbohrer to buy.
For myself, my smart glasses use case involves darkening headlights of oncoming traffic as I drive at night. The road curves a bit in parts of the city I live in, and the headlights shine in my eyes. It's not worth 5,000$ but car insurance also feels expensive until I need it.
People are pissed that Big Tech/VC/SV has taken over seemingly everything, enshittified it, and enriched the enshittifiers (while the economy has gotten worse for nearly everyone else, and Big Tech's fucking insane leaders have gone full steam ahead at destroying the social contract--literally in some cases by eviscertating whole swaths of the American federal government, and probably illegally at that--and funding the campiagns of those who seek to shield Big Tech from liability.). All this despite having come onto the scene under the guise of "Don't Be Evil" and "Think Different." Data Centers are the most visible manifestation of this ugly side of Big Tech/VC/SV, and ugly in and of themselves; thus, it is not surprising that people roundly reject them. There is (because of the timing of this inflection point--upward--in data centers and inflection point--downward--in economic sentiment/reality) probably also some post hoc ergo propter hoc or temporal-correlation-as-causation going on here too.
The thing is, it takes a pretty coherent worldview of Big Tech, VC economics, politics, etc., to state above as such, so I am not surprised (in a time when education, too, is being destroyed--often by Big Tech itself) most people can't articulate it. 1 in 5 american adults is functionally illiterate, after all.
Hypothesis: The American diet contains more carcinogens (dyes, additives, pesticides, supplements in poultry/beef/pork) and therefore USA is is more need of CRC screening.
USA generally has higher CRC rates than other developed nations:
I think that article is from 2009. Need something more recent. Also it mentions that as countries become high-income economies, the incidence rate increases.
I agree with much of your sentiment, but if the lack of bailout (which let me reiterate, I agree with) leads to a recession, it will kill the D chances in 2028. They will apply this calculus to their political behavior, and (as is typical for the Ds) will do nothing.
reply