| ▲ | tencentshill 6 hours ago |
| These guys have unlimited money, why are they still transporting with regular couriers? There are tons of end-to-end secure logistics companies out there that can do the job. I can't imagine their insurance is too happy about it either. It's been an ongoing well-coordinated effort, with gear often ending up in China. Hello, where is the FBI? https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/big-tech/data-cen... It's going to make a hell of a good movie one day though. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > These guys have unlimited money, why are they still transporting with regular couriers? Commercial shipments don’t work like when you receive a package from Amazon. The terms of the freight, including the point at which ownership is handed off, are negotiated terms. An $11.4 million contract would have this negotiated and agreed upon. Depending on how it’s structured, the shipment may not have been the shipper’s responsibility at all after it left the warehouse. > I can't imagine their insurance is too happy about it either. Insurance would take the risk of the transport method into account. The policy would say what transport methods are covered and the allowed methods would be used to calculate the risk of loss. |
| |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I usually have two options. FOB origin, where I assume ownership when the item leaves the seller’s dock. FOB destination is more expensive, but the seller maintains ownership until the item is delivered to my choice of destination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOB_(shipping) I always pay for FOB destination when ordering high value items. I bought two 250kVA UPSes from Eaton and one of the pallets tipped over on the truck. The 2% I paid for FOB destination meant Eaton delivered another 250kVA UPS at their cost. Unsure if Eaton was made whole by the shipper or not. | |
| ▲ | exmadscientist 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This, exactly. There's a pretty good chance this is all on the buyer, by contract. |
|
|
| ▲ | roenxi 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > These guys have unlimited money, why are they still transporting with regular couriers? Because decisions about how to handle individual units are made based on unit economics. And if you have unlimited money $10 million in lost goods is a rounding error that doesn't require any action. |
| |
|
| ▲ | fusslo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't have an answer just anecdotally I know we'd use UPS (not even usps) to ship classified documents when I worked at the DOE |
| |
| ▲ | ozarkerD 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | USPS accidentally delivered a bunch of classified military documents to my parents house when I was a kid. Some government official came out to personally take them back and thanked my parents profusely for returning them. | |
| ▲ | httpz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A classified F-35 component was shipped using UPS and it somehow ended up in China https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/24/chinaf-f35-components-hong-k... | |
| ▲ | busterarm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the early 00s I worked in print production and we printed a ton of material for the DoE. Their own employees would give us classified documents to print into binders for presentations/meetings all the time. We were basically a Kinkos... | |
| ▲ | htrp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | UPS also somehow delivered stealth F35 Parts directly to China... no espionage required |
|
|
| ▲ | manquer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 11M worth of chips is very small stakes for all involved[1]. It is just about two NVL72 racks worth. Every logistics operations expects a certain percentage of theft, they insure for it. The cost of securing has to be less than cost of loss. The logistics departments are doing 10's of billions of dollars every month to every hyperscaler and all the neoclouds all over the country (and internationally). Even military logistics routinely losses high value items - from the recent f-35 part they tried to ship via HK(and lost to China) to even full nuclear bombs that are lost to this day from the cold war era. If we cannot secure nuclear bombs 100% during transit, there isn't going to be 100% success for computer chips. [1]Even for foreign adversaries, probably not worth the risk of the scandal just to get two racks. They need orders of magnitude more - the South East Asian route in the news this week seems to be $5-10B worth of chips for context. |
| |
|
| ▲ | asdfman123 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you have unlimited money, it also means that $11.4M is nothing to you. |
|
| ▲ | kube-system 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 1. This was 6 pallets, not really a large shipment. 2. Was it an issue with the courier? The article makes it sound like it was picked up by a truck that wasn't supposed to |
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | exe34 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a question of how often it fails and how much it costs to fix it. If they can save $1 on average by doing it the dumb way, then that's what they'll do. |
|
| ▲ | redanddead 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 1/ their insurance doesn't give a fuck 2/ why would the FBI get involved in local police matters? |
| |
| ▲ | garettmd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, it's an interstate commerce incident, which is squarely within the FBI's purview. | | |
| ▲ | nickff 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even as someone very skeptical of the application of the 'interstate commercial clause', I must say this is a crystal clear example of it. | |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As we've heard repeatedly this week, for unrelated reasons, it's also national security issue. That's definitely FBI purview | | |
| ▲ | redanddead 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Im not threaten by China at all, there should be no sale restrictions. However I also don't think CEOs should be able to sidestep government regulations that they operate under and I hope he gets nailed to the wall over this. If I got caught selling even a handful of restricted GPUs to China, I would be in prison. If we want to even pretend we live under the Rule of Law, this guy should be too. | | |
| ▲ | redanddead 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > However I also don't think CEOs should be able to sidestep government regulations Why not? Is Nvidia an American company or a global company? Jensen is right, logical and pragmatic > I hope he gets nailed to the wall over this Hope whatever you want to hope, go look at your local towns and cities and tell me how they’re doing. Go see what our retarded mindset of self-harm did to us. >Rule of Law What a nice pipedream. America can’t be a place of dreams and of wanting harm to others at the same time, you’ve gotta pick a lane buddy. The jingoism is coming from a tiny tiny handful of people, most Americans don’t give a fuuuuuck and just wanna have fun. There’s no reason for us to restrict or fight China it’s the dumbest shit, they’re so innovative | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does that even mean? What does being a "global company" mean exactly? It was founded in the US, it is headquartered in California, its stock is sold public on the US stock exchange. Yeah it needs to follow US rules. And self harm for following our own rules? If the law is wrong, the law should be changed, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore the law when it is convenient because other people break laws. People do drugs and steal stuff every day, does that mean I should be allowed to smoke crack on the White House lawn and steal their pink flamingos without punishment? Also if you don't believe in the Rule of Law or that we should enforce it, you don't believe in democracy or modern society. In which case I really could not care less about your opinions on law and order because they are of zero worth. It would just be rule by strength of arms, and the only reasonable response to that is using my own strength of arms to beat or kill my opposition into submission. | | |
| ▲ | redanddead 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Jensen is right! > It was founded in the US, it is headquartered in California, its stock is sold public on the US stock exchange. Yeah it needs to follow US rules. Fuck that The law gets changed thanks to innovators and pioneers like him otherwise we follow the same policy that’s killing us. I simply refuse no matter what to see 1.4 billion people as the enemy blindly when they’re driving our world towards progress while our governance is out here jerking off and hurting ourselves |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think I'm the FBI? Why are you asking me this like I'm the one making the claims? All I did was report what is being said about the situation. Also, nobody asked if you were concerned. Why is your opinion important or interesting in any way regarding this. Are you Jensen using an alias? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | esseph 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 2/ why would the FBI get involved in local police matters? Because as far as the US government is concerned, GPU technology is an export-controlled, somewhat sensitive item. Like non-nuclear components for nuclear weapons, in a way. | | |
| ▲ | redanddead 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | jensen is right, comparing GPUs and AI to nukes is lunacy holy fuck, which planet are you on? Do you know what modern nukes do? They’re horrific. Token generators and JEPA are cute science experiments, barely useful at all. Prove me wrong. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'll leave this here, it has their reasoning behind it: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48642 --- Semiconductors are strategic and uniquely important electronic devices. They are fundamental to most industrial and national security activities and serve as essential building blocks of other technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI). Policymakers, including top leaders in the United States, the People's Republic of China (PRC, or China), and elsewhere, see semiconductors and AI technologies as critical to future economic competitiveness, national security, and global leadership. In 2014, the PRC government issued a national semiconductor industrial policy with the stated goal of establishing a world-leading semiconductor industry in all areas of the integrated circuit supply chain by 2030. To achieve its goals of technology leadership and independence, China has used government financing and certain policies to foster targeted foreign commercial ties across the semiconductor supply chain. Since 2018, the U.S. government has sought to strengthen U.S. export controls of advanced semiconductors with the stated intent of both restricting PRC access to the technologies and ability to produce advanced chips, and curtailing PRC access to related computing and AI applications. U.S. actions have also sought to sustain U.S. leadership in advanced chips, related parts of the semiconductor supply chain, and computing and AI applications, while slowing China's development of competitive capabilities. U.S. actions have been grounded in concerns about PRC efforts to build an indigenous, self-sufficient, and secure and controllable semiconductor ecosystem; and PRC military-civil fusion policies that seek to use commercial advancements in semiconductors, AI, and other technologies for military uses. Some analysts have noted that before 2018, some U.S. controls and licensing policies vis-a-vis China allowed some U.S. firms across the supply chain to contribute to the development of China's semiconductor industry. U.S. efforts to enhance controls have restricted some advanced technologies and activities from China. Other parts of the semiconductor supply chain remain open to China. --- |
|
| |
| ▲ | reaperducer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | their insurance doesn't give a fuck When the company doesn't care, the insurance still cares. When the police don't care, the insurance still cares. Insurance always cares. | | |
| ▲ | wnevets 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | death, taxes and insurance caring about these things | |
| ▲ | redanddead 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | the insurance doesn’t care in the slightest and is happy with this particular trade, many shipments don’t get stolen It’s baked into the cost Insurance cares about losing hundreds more billions on hurricanes and floods, and even then they barely give a fuck. Nobody cares about some little shitty shipment | | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | slightest and is happy with this particular trade, many shipments don’t get stolen Clearly you've never owned a business or dealt with commercial insurance. Perhaps stop replying since you don't know what you're talking about. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, the FBI is busy felatios for Binance and their billion funny-dollar coins! |
|
