Or the fact that if they sell all their RAM without putting it in devices, they won’t be able to sell devices, and some portion of their customer base will leave their ecosystem, possibly forever.
And you think this is the first sign that they’ve decided they’re going to spend the next few years being a RAM reseller before starting to sell consumer products again?
No, but "shipping less RAM" is clearly on that spectrum. The point wasn't about literal product strategy, it's that there's a limit to what actions are financially feasible and it's set by "what else could you do with that junk?"
That's my whole point. M3 Max 128GB -> M3 Ultra 512GB. M5 Max 128GB -> M5 Ultra 512GB. But if M5 Max 192GB -> M5 Ultra 768GB, i.e. Ultra having 4x the memory of Max.
Shouldn't future contract sellers be smart enough to take these aspects in account? So you might not pay the spot price. But overall you will cover it. As those selling futures are there to make money. So they charge more than they pay for the power.
Exactly what is it about CO2, a plant food, that scares you so much? You do realize that green plants react to increased CO2 percentage with stronger growth?
He was asking you to try to 'steelman', or take seriously the strongest version of, the arguments of your counterparts, rather than being dismissive.
"Plants like CO2" is not a counterargument to "Increased atmoospheric CO2 will have a number of outcomes that are net negative for humanity", so I presume they're asking you to actually think about the argument being made and respond to it, not some other, made up one.
reply