| ▲ | stymaar 2 hours ago | |
> There is nothing illicit or illegal Which is exactly the point of the person you're responding to. What part of “but completely legal” isn't clear enough? | ||
| ▲ | nl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Their implication ("A la Enron", "they can buy good lawyers to keep it completely legal") that there is something illicit or wrong in what NVidia is doing. The OP clearly is implying that it should be illegal for some reason. This is wrong - not only is it nothing like Enron (!?) but it's a great way for both NVidia and the companies building on them to build what they want. | ||
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Enron was illegal but also a sham. The point is we have no evidence Nvidia's financing is a sham. It could be. And if it is, it's a huge problem. But the shammiest parts of what Enron did do not apply to Nvidia, which makes the comparison a bit like saying OP is Hannibal Lecter but legal while glossing over the fact that OP never murdered anyone but once drank red wine. (Also note that illegal != illicit.) | ||