3 ms·
It's bad for consumers period. A deal that hampers 40% of global supply shouldn't be a thing, it's predatory. I know DRAM is not a necessity, but considering th
by am17an 10mo ago
It's bad for consumers period. A deal that hampers 40% of global supply shouldn't be a thing, it's predatory. I know DRAM is not a necessity, but considering that PCs are going to be affected means this affects real things like schools and hospitals. There's being smart while making a deal and there's knee-capping the market with your leveraged to the tits business
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- behnamoh 10mo agobut where do we draw the line? Would 39% be okay? and who's gonna draw the line and enforce it?
- am17an 10mo agoI hope this is not a serious argument. This deal is OOM larger than other deals
- daemonologist 10mo agoThe line imo is the amount of DRAM OpenAI actually needs/can use. If they end up piling some of it in a warehouse just so nobody else can use it, lock em up.
- UltraSane 10mo agoDo they actually have the cash to buy all of this RAM? If not then it should be very illegal.
- hollerith 10mo agoThere's no need to make it illegal: it doesn't happen because the companies with the RAM to sell are motivated by profit. The problem is that OpenAI has plenty of money to buy RAM. They raised $40 billion in April.
- testing22321 10mo agoYou’re just talking about putting limits on capitalism. Be careful, that’s blasphemy.