| ▲ | 392 a day ago |
| I think it's a plausible play that keeps the AI boom in session for a year or two longer. Or at least, $13b to stay at the head of the race (or keep the race running) must be worth it to someone's desk. There's only $50b in datacenter buildout nationally (Source: Gemini, 2026). So it is a bit of a puzzling choice for what amounts to a pile of software, in my opinion. but I don't know shit. |
|
| ▲ | rezonant a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Did you just quote an LLM as a citation? That's not how citations work. |
| |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths a day ago | parent | next [-] | | "That's not how citations work." (Dude on the interwebz, 2026) But more seriously, this is my first time seeing that as well, and I'm not sure I like it. Citing an LLM is a little like citing Wikipedia to me, you cite the primary source the LLM is quoting directly, not the secondary source. | | |
| ▲ | speerer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Far worse from my perspective is that it's not a fixed citation that it's not falsifiable. It's just a mutable, generalized source, which is stochastic in nature. It may as well say "(Socrates, probably)" | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A Wikipedia link can be nice when you get several different sources provided. | |
| ▲ | gspr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So much of present day feels like being back in middle school around the turn of the millenium, with classmates (and even some teachers!) new to the internet insisting that "source: internet" or "source: google" was totally fine. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s the formatting and formality that bother me. Say “I looked it up with Gemini,” don’t give me some weak attempt at “proper citation” to legitimize the bare minimum effort you put in. | | |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even worse is that Gemini's knowledge cutoff is still Jan '25. | |
| ▲ | bdangubic a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | 2026 equivalent of “my Mama told me” |
|
|
| ▲ | zenoprax a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > There's only $50b in datacenter buildout nationally (Source: Gemini, 2026). Your reference lacks authority, veracity, and reproducibility. |
| |
|
| ▲ | drumhead a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Better to site the primary source, its like googling something and then siting google as your source. |
|
| ▲ | bbor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They’re buying a brand, some employees, and some momentum — not any of their software. HF probably does have propriety goodies to make it all run efficiently, but certainly not a billion dollars worth, much less 13! |
| |
| ▲ | r0b05 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We are so used to these numbers being thrown around in the AI era that something one needs a reminder that this is 13 billion, not million. Insane exit by HF. | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 80x its yearly revenue. Clearly they aren't buying HF for margins. In fact, has HF ever wished to make money? They probably pay AWS more infra cost than they earn. The exit was planned all along. | |
| ▲ | techpression a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Was looking for this comment, the tech world has gotten completely insane with ”valuations”. I would love to hear why it was 13 and not 5. It would still be completely insane at 5 billion, but someone though they should add another 8… | | |
| ▲ | speed_spread a day ago | parent [-] | | Opportunity cost for Nvidia to prevent HF from going public or being sold to someone else. It's an insight into Nvidia's market prediction and what HF told them they'd do if left alone. |
|
| |
| ▲ | catwell a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No company is going to be acquired for their software alone with multi-billion valuations ever again. It should be clear by now that code alone is not where the value is anymore, if it ever was. | |
| ▲ | wilburx3 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, the price is weird as fuck. |
|
|
| ▲ | jatora a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
