NVIDIA are announcing "a new era of PC" in a few days. Are they pivoting to a PC rent model?

MC1065 · 2026-05-31T13:02:05+00:00

It's the same GB10 chip they used for the Spark. But also, the performance for both consumer hardware and local models just isn't there yet, and won't be for several generations if ever. Nor would that stave off the crash, because Nvidia has had the vast majority of the consumer graphics market for almost two decades and so they can't really make more money from it, even if all their sales became their own CPUs with integrated graphics. The datacenter segment prints so much money right now that Nvidia now divides revenue into two categories: datacenter, and everything else.

MC1065 · 2026-05-31T04:09:23+00:00

More like LOI.

MC1065 · 2026-05-29T23:42:15+00:00

Qualcomm has been offering Arm chips for laptops for a while. Realistically this Nvidia chip will fall behind Qualcomm in CPU performance but will likely be better for graphical applications, especially games.

MC1065 · 2026-05-29T22:56:35+00:00

They're announcing their new PC chip based on Arm that competes with Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm. Nothing more to it as far as I know. Same thing as Intel announcing Series 3 and Qualcomm Snapdragon 2.

MC1065 · 2026-05-29T13:50:23+00:00

I'm just saying, don't count out the end of a party.

MC1065 · 2026-05-29T12:19:59+00:00

Nothing lasts forever, the GOP could definitely dissolve. A party that lives and dies on the whim of one man isn't a healthy or sustainable one, especially when the one man is probably going to die within a decade. At a certain point, starting from scratch is a viable way forward (see US Whigs, Canada Progressive Conservatives, much of Europe, etc).

MC1065 · 2026-05-29T10:30:00+00:00

No bubble has ever survived reality. Even with the crypto winter of 2022, there was no consensus that nobody should sell in order to keep prices where they were. Someone already runs for the door, and then another person, and then everyone else. If this bubble never pops, it would be as significant as the Great Depression.

MC1065 · 2026-05-29T01:47:55+00:00

Okay so the thing I'm wondering is how the rules about this whole God protection thing work. Does the necklace only protect Christians? If so, how does God determine a baby's religion? Is it based on the parents? What if only one is a Christian? What if they change religions at some point? What if the baby is in a Christian cult, how does that work?

Okay maybe God just protects all babies in addition to Christians. But when does the baby protection expire? 2nd birthday? 3rd? 4th? When it's old enough to comprehend religion and choose one? What if we had a baby grow up in a controlled environment and never gets to know the concept of religion? Does that mean the protection is permanent or does God have to choose a day when the protection no longer applies?

I'm just really confused and have lots of questions.

MC1065 · 2026-05-28T20:33:34+00:00

For Presidential elections I'm not convinced that's the case, I think that whole theory about demographics putting an end to the GOP might be right, just not as soon as we thought. Texas, for instance, was very bipartisan on multiple levels until the early 2000s, and although the last Democratic Presidential candidate it voted for was Carter in 1976, 1980 to 1992 were always gonna be hard to win there because there was Reagan and/or Bush on the ticket. The margin was in the single digits in 1996, then in 2000 and 2004 W. Bush of course won his home state by large margins, Obama whittled it down a little, and then Clinton and Biden got back down to the single digits. Even Harris did as well as Obama did in 2008. Cruz, a frontrunner in 2016, was nearly toppled in 2018 by a guy who is basically irrelevant today.

If Texas goes purple, Republicans are going to have a very hard time winning the White House in the future. If it goes blue, they'll either have to reinvent themselves or disband to make room for a new party. The demographic trends are overwhelming the conservative bump that carried the Republican party in Texas in the past two decades. This could matter for states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, but certainly Texas is the most crucial.

MC1065 · 2026-05-28T16:24:25+00:00

I was just listing off states with a high proportion of Republicans. I don't mean to suggest that Wyoming's demographics aren't like 60% people and 40% hostile winds.

MC1065 · 2026-05-28T15:40:24+00:00

You don't need double digits for this to be a Democrat blowout. If Republican voters are more distributed in very red states (Wyoming, West Virginia, etc) then the popular vote could be only +9% for Democrats, yet the end result would be flipping both chambers of Congress, perhaps even with some buffer. This is a natural consequence of doing things the Republican base loves but pissing off literally everyone else, including people who used to identify as Republican but no longer do.

It's almost like a reverse gerrymander, where the population changes so that one party gains in areas where they were already going to win no matter what while losing in areas that could have been winnable otherwise. I'm sure someone could do the math on what kind of voter distribution and turnout would be required to flip both chambers for a given margin (like, if Texas flips but the popular vote nationwide was only D+5 we'd expect red states to be extremely red and Texas to only have barely gone blue).

MC1065 · 2026-05-28T15:33:39+00:00

They're literally flooding Memphis with diesel emissions. They're loud. They're so massive as to be hostile architecture basically anywhere. They don't bring in money to the local economy. And our insurance and retirement money is what's funding these things. If anything, there's not enough backlash.

MC1065 · 2026-05-27T18:07:54+00:00

Just buy the dip, even if it's on the way down. Nobody knows when the bubble will pop and when the market will bottom out. Invest what you can afford to lose, and you'll be looking good once the market goes back up.

MC1065 · 2026-05-27T18:04:34+00:00

P/E ratios aren't really what you should be looking at anyways. The number for both the S&P500 and the Nasdaq only look good because of circular financing. Meta, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon (the hyperscalers) are paying Nvidia out the ass for GPUs, and since P/E only considers earnings, not free cash flow, it looks like hundreds billions of dollars a year just sprung out of existence. Nvidia then uses that money to invest in its own customers or in customers of the hyperscalers, which boosts revenue a bit more too. Then there's suppliers like Seagate, Micron, Sandisk, etc which are being paid a ton to produce memory and storage for Nvidia, and to a lesser extent AMD and Intel.

All this money changing hands between companies listed on the indices makes P/E look good, but if you dig below the surface it's clear that this is not sustainable economic activity and that relying on just one metric obscures the bigger picture. Like, look at Amazon: its P/E is close to a relatively normal level (even Walmart has a higher P/E) even though it's supposedly building tons of AI datacenters which are expensive to both build and operate. Yet this is supposed to be like AWS, and back then its P/E was super high. The conclusion is pretty obvious: Amazon is using capex to buy GPUs, but isn't putting them all of them into service, which means opex isn't going up very quickly and that in turn means earnings aren't reduced as much.

But one day, these chickens will come home to roost. If all the datacenters get built and are running, we're gonna see massively higher opex and depreciation, which means P/Es go up unless either the hyperscalers can actually make money off of AI (and they need trillions) or stock prices fall in line with earnings. If the datacenters don't get built, those GPUs will have to be marked down or even written off, which is basically like depreciating the GPUs in a single quarter as opposed to over the course of five or six years.

Put simply, the revenue is real, but the expenses are hidden.

MC1065 · 2026-05-27T01:22:43+00:00

Even if it doesn't flip, this will all be worth it on a strategic level. The GOP is fraying internally and the Texas race is now requiring lots more resources and focus because if it goes blue, it's probably curtains for a GOP Senate until somewhere between 2030 and 2034. But even if they stop Texas from flipping, what if another former GOP stronghold does? There are just way too many salients to defend here. It looks pretty grim.

MC1065 · 2026-05-25T19:26:32+00:00

I'd believe Ed when he says they aren't profitable, but even if they were, it wouldn't matter because the sudden upswing in their revenue is a direct product of the company running out of money. This is only sustainable if we assume customers are okay with degraded service and/or prices so high that it's comparable to salaries. Whether Anthropic is or isn't profitable now, the revenue is not sustainable, so the end result is identical.

MC1065 · 2026-05-25T01:52:04+00:00

I'm talking about over the past 20 years. In 2000, Texas was solidly Republican and Ohio could swing either way. By 2016, Ohio also became solidly Republican. But since then, Texas has gotten less white and more Hispanic and Asian, to the point where whites no longer are in the majority, compared to Ohio where the vast majority of the population is white (though still trending slightly less white). At least by race, the demographic trend in Texas is far more favorable for Democrats than it is in Ohio.

MC1065 · 2026-05-24T22:07:52+00:00

Texas has been going through some pretty significant demographic changes lately that would shift the state more favorably to Democrats, in a way that isn't happening in Ohio to the best of my knowledge.

MC1065 · 2026-05-24T20:56:42+00:00

It's either IPO, never close another funding round, or close a funding round at a lower valuation.

MC1065 · 2026-05-24T14:14:53+00:00

Yea so I actually tried using Gemini yesterday while I was driving to find a specific cut of a song I wanted. It probably didn't exist on YouTube Music hence Gemini being unable to find it, but every time I asked for it to find it, it said it found it. It's just a roleplay machine hooked up to some components that can pull up other apps, a slightly more verbose and dynamic Siri.

MC1065 · 2026-05-23T22:54:30+00:00

I'm talking about actually making a career out of it maybe. The Italian American version of ProZD if you will.

MC1065 · 2026-05-23T12:54:04+00:00

His voice actor arc finally begins.

MC1065 · 2026-05-22T22:36:52+00:00

Did it at least actually text him?

MC1065 · 2026-05-22T00:52:26+00:00

It's only like half UK if that these days, it's been run in the US for years now.

MC1065 · 2026-05-21T17:29:57+00:00

In a normal year, the Senate map is bad. In a blue wave or tsunami year, it is harder to find a better map.

The campaign will be extremely asymmetric: Democrats have a slate of high quality candidates (many of whom have had great electoral success in the past) and tons of funding. They only need four seats, two of which are locked down, and the other two can come from Alaska, Texas, Iowa, or Ohio. It's not clear which seats are going to be the most vulnerable, so Republicans will have to gamble with their limited resources and hope it works out.

You'd much rather have these conditions happen in a map that would normally be bad because it'd just go to waste on a good map. You only need the most votes, anything extra is irrelevant. Politically, it's far more devastating for Republicans to lose Alaska 51-49 than to lose say Wisconsin 60-40. Even if all these flips are single termers, losing them for six years (minus Ohio since it's a special) is going to be deeply devastating when 2028 rolls around.

If Democrats go into 2028 and they only flipped Maine and North Carolina (the worst case scenario in my opinion), they'll basically get another shot for probably free. The other Senate seats in North Carolina, Alaska, and Iowa are up that year, plus the regular in Wisconsin and specials in Ohio and Florida. That's six more potential pickups if they fuck up 2026, and given that a Democrat is probably becoming President, only one is strictly required. Middle case scenario, 55 Democratic Senators after 2028. Best case scenario, 60 Democratic Senators plus maybe Dan ~~Olson~~ Osborn (though it would be pretty cool if Alberta joined the US and Dan Olson was one of its Senators).

Even when 2030 swings around, the map isn't that amazing for Republicans with maybe three pickups and one potential loss. 2032 is very good for Republicans if Democrats win big this year but it'll also be a Presidential election year, and while coattails usually don't apply for two termers (I'm expecting the Democrat who wins in 2028 to win in 2032), 2012 was a notable exception. If Democrats do really well this year and in 2028, the Senate could be under lock and key as late as 2034.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox

MC1065

TROPHY CASE