skybrian's recent activity
-
Comment on Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures in ~finance
-
Comment on Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures in ~finance
skybrian (edited )Link ParentAnnualized revenue means, for example, that you take one month of revenue and multiply by 12 to get a more impressive number. If you do that for a previous quarter and the current quarter and take...revenue and usage increased 80-fold in the first quarter on an annualized basis
Annualized revenue means, for example, that you take one month of revenue and multiply by 12 to get a more impressive number. If you do that for a previous quarter and the current quarter and take a percentage then the x12 would cancel out and it’s just the quarterly growth rate.
But then, why say “annualized” at all if it cancels out?
I think you’re right, it must be some kind of projection and we don’t really know how they did it. It does make the 80x number more reasonable if it’s a projection. 80x yearly growth for one quarter is apparently amost 200% quarterly growth. Tripling in size is very impressive rather than being surreal.
3^4 = 81.
-
Comment on Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures in ~finance
skybrian Link ParentSharing numbers with the public is unnecessary to get private investment. They can share more details with their investors than they share with the public. We simply don’t know what their...Sharing numbers with the public is unnecessary to get private investment. They can share more details with their investors than they share with the public. We simply don’t know what their investors are seeing.
It seems reasonable to infer that those numbers probably look pretty good.
They have no path to profitability.
Revenue growth, assuming it holds up and they’re not losing money on inference, is an excellent path to profitability.
-
Comment on Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures in ~finance
skybrian Link ParentThey are private companies so they don’t have to publish financial statements. Their CEOs will reveal some numbers now and then, when the numbers are good. So, do take it with a grain of salt, but...They are private companies so they don’t have to publish financial statements. Their CEOs will reveal some numbers now and then, when the numbers are good. So, do take it with a grain of salt, but it’s not a fraud indicator.
-
Comment on Railway solar project turns unused track space into energy in ~enviro
skybrian LinkYou can probably lay solar panels on the ground just about anywhere but sure, why not? Maybe installation is easier?You can probably lay solar panels on the ground just about anywhere but sure, why not? Maybe installation is easier?
-
Comment on Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures in ~finance
skybrian (edited )Link ParentThere is definitely something very strange going on, but this doesn’t look like just accounting shenanigans. Anthropic CEO says 80-fold growth in first quarter explains 'difficulties with compute'...There is definitely something very strange going on, but this doesn’t look like just accounting shenanigans.
Anthropic CEO says 80-fold growth in first quarter explains 'difficulties with compute'
80x revenue growth in a quarter is simply surreal. How can that be true? But it does seem to explain why Anthropic’s uptime is worse than Twitter in the fail whale days, and why they hurriedly rented an entire data center from SpaceX along with deals with Amazon and Google, and why other companies are making private investments at such sky-high valuations that it’s screwing up the accounting for the entire S&P 500.
Other data points: GitHub has been down a lot because their of their exponential traffic growth. And from one customer’s perspective, Uber burned through their AI budget for the year in one quarter. They are slowing hiring to spend more on AI.
So, it seems businesses really are spending huge amounts on AI to Anthropic’s benefit and maybe they will keep spending?
Apparently their managements believe their AI bills are worth the money. They would rather spend money on AI than on labor.
And the question is how much of that is a fad, or whether companies are just going to keep paying their AI bills from now on. Will they change their minds? Management at many software companies has been pushing AI hard, but suppose they stop to reassess what benefit they’re getting from it?
Also, there are some signs that competition from other AI companies is going to change things. Self-hosting an LLM is almost sorta adequate. There are also companies selling inference at much lower prices. Also, Google is in competition with its investment in Anthropic and there’s no reason to believe their LLMs won’t get better.
I don’t suppose anyone really expects Anthropic will see 80x revenue growth again because that would be too crazy and they can’t rent data centers fast enough to do it. They’re probably still expecting a lot of growth, though.
-
Comment on Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures in ~finance
skybrian LinkFrom the article: A Fortune article puts it this way: Google and Amazon’s biggest profit driver last quarter was their Anthropic stakes—which they haven’t sold But I was unable to figure out how...From the article:
According to Goldman’s investment research team, reported first-quarter earnings growth for the benchmark index came in near 25%. However, the bank noted that gains tied to investment-related activity at Amazon and Alphabet significantly boosted the aggregate results, creating what analysts described as a distortion in the overall earnings picture.
After adjusting for those investment gains, Goldman estimates underlying earnings growth for the S&P 500 was closer to 16%, still reflecting solid corporate profitability but at a notably slower pace than headline data suggests.
A Fortune article puts it this way: Google and Amazon’s biggest profit driver last quarter was their Anthropic stakes—which they haven’t sold
But I was unable to figure out how much of Google's Q1 profits were from Anthropic. They're not mentioned in the earnings release. However, gains from equity investments, which will include other investments like SpaceX, were $36.9 billion, with a footnote:
Includes all gains and losses, unrealized and realized, on equity securities. For Q1 2026, the net effect of the gain on equity securities of $36.9 billion increased the provision for income tax, net income, and diluted net income per share by $8.2 billion, $28.7 billion, and $2.35, respectively. Fluctuations in the value of our investments may be affected by market dynamics and other factors and could significantly contribute to the volatility of OI&E in future periods.
Warren Buffett would frequently write a similar but more straightforward warning in his newsletters, that GAAP accounting rules requiring equity investments to be marked to market results in large swings in the value of Berkshire Hathaway's equity investments from one quarter to the next.
So apparently, Alphabet is becoming more like an investment firm now?
-
Goldman Sachs flags Amazon and Alphabet for inflating S&P 500 earnings growth figures
15 votes -
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian Link ParentI don't think it's much of heuristic and maybe we should be more cautious about attributing intentions to a system. In computing, it's often unwarranted anthropomorphism. The people working on a...I don't think it's much of heuristic and maybe we should be more cautious about attributing intentions to a system. In computing, it's often unwarranted anthropomorphism. The people working on a system (or as part of a system) may have intentions, and sometimes they conflict.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian (edited )Link ParentWhy not? Intentions and results are logically distinct. People fail to do what they intend all the time. It seems like you're asserting that it's a useful phase, but you haven't shown that it's...The entire point of POSIWID is that you cannot claim a system is intended to do something which is constantly fails to do.
Why not? Intentions and results are logically distinct. People fail to do what they intend all the time.
It seems like you're asserting that it's a useful phase, but you haven't shown that it's useful other than as a misleading rhetorical move.
It's true that you might be suspicious that when a system that fails to achieve its supposed purpose, that purpose is just an empty phrase. Many company slogans are empty. It might be worth investigating. But suspicions aren't proof and repeating a catch-phrase doesn't actually turn it into proof.
-
Comment on US will revoke passports for parents who owe child support in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...] [...]From the article:
The department told The Associated Press on Thursday that the revocations would begin Friday and be focused on those who owe $100,000 or more. That would apply to about 2,700 American passport holders, according to figures supplied to the State Department by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The revocation program, plans for which were first reported by the AP in February, soon will be greatly expanded to cover parents who owe more than $2,500 in unpaid child support — the threshold set by a little-enforced 1996 law, the State Department said.
[...]
Until this week, only those who applied to renew their passports were subject to the penalty. Under the new policy, HHS will inform the State Department of all past-due payments of more than $2,500 and parents in that group with passports will have their documents revoked, the department said.
[...]
A passport holder who is abroad at the time of revocation will need to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to obtain an emergency travel document that allows them to return to the United States.
-
US will revoke passports for parents who owe child support
15 votes -
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian Link ParentIt seems obvious that both statements are unfair? You're proving Scott's point. Anyone can play this game to prove anything they like. Finding a way to use this game to prove something that's true...This article starts by imploring me to consider various, deliberately unfairly constructed claims,1 and expects me to immediately drop my positions from that alone. This is a reversible argument:
The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients.
The purpose of a cancer hospital is to make money off cancer treatments.
It seems obvious that both statements are unfair?
You're proving Scott's point. Anyone can play this game to prove anything they like. Finding a way to use this game to prove something that's true doesn't help, because you can prove just about anything. It's a way to make up any purpose you want.
This is similar to proof by contradiction in mathematics.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian Link ParentYeah, I wouldn't have shared the article except that it was so on-point. I don't think that slogan is repeated very often? Although, it does have a Wikipedia page.Yeah, I wouldn't have shared the article except that it was so on-point. I don't think that slogan is repeated very often? Although, it does have a Wikipedia page.
-
Comment on US trade court rules against Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...]From the article:
The US trade court on Thursday ruled against Donald Trump’s latest 10% global tariffs, finding across-the-board tariffs were not justified under a 1970s trade law.
The US court of international trade ruled in favor of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, which took effect on 24 February. The ruling was 2-1, with one judge saying it was premature to grant victory to the small business plaintiffs.
[...]
In his February order, Trump invoked section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for duties for up to 150 days to correct serious “balance of payments deficits” or head off an imminent depreciation of the dollar.
Thursday’s court ruling found the law was not an appropriate step for the kinds of trade deficits that Trump cited in his February order.
Meanwhile, Trump also said on Thursday he would give the European Union until 4 July to implement trade deal commitments before he raises tariffs on EU goods including cars to “much higher levels”.
-
US trade court rules against Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs
15 votes -
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian Link ParentYep, he wrote about how he decided to donate a kidney and the process he went through here.Yep, he wrote about how he decided to donate a kidney and the process he went through here.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian Link ParentThe biggest problem with EA is that people have discussed a lot of out-there ideas over the years and then someone comes along and pretends that's what EA is all about. The "earn to give" stuff is...The biggest problem with EA is that people have discussed a lot of out-there ideas over the years and then someone comes along and pretends that's what EA is all about.
The "earn to give" stuff is certainly something that some EA websites promote, but it's only one part of EA that not everyone in EA agrees with. As is existential risk, and longtermism. Animal welfare is another big one. There are lots of causes and people don't agree on which ones are best.
The idea that if you donate a lot of money to charity then you should "stop being good" is a caricature. It's not like buying indulgences or something. (This is somewhat related to utilitarianism, but people don't need to agree with utilitarianism.)
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
skybrian Link ParentThe reason it might seem this way is that donating money to charity is largely a rich-people problem and if you don't have a lot of money yourself, advising people who do have money is a great way...The reason it might seem this way is that donating money to charity is largely a rich-people problem and if you don't have a lot of money yourself, advising people who do have money is a great way to have more impact.
That's a characteristic of the nature of charity work rather than EA in particular. Charitable foundations are started by rich people and young people interested in charity might go work for them.
That's also true of government and business: you can control or influence the spending of money that's not yours.
It's like the story of what a famous bank robber said when asked why he robbed banks: "that's where the money is."
It's also possible to raise money from small donations, but it's a lot more work. Politicians will do it to avoid accusations of being funded by the rich.
I think the "earn to give" stuff is misunderstood. Realistically, a lot of people who set out to be software engineers or whatever aren't going to quit their jobs and go to work at a low-paying job that supposedly does more good. And it might not be a good idea anyway if it's not what they're good at.
Perhaps giving money to charity is second-best, but it beats not doing it.
Justifying inequality is not what EA is about. It's about being practical. We can imagine a very different world, but it's not very relevant when you're deciding what to do in this world. If you're trying to get things done, putting "first, let's have a revolution" as step one of your plan means you never get to step two.
I'll also point out that convincing rich people to give money to poor people is working against inequality. It's not enough to prevent inequality because the forces working in the other direction are very strong. But it will matter a lot to the people it helps.
One of the things that makes it tricky is that depreciation is a sort of standardized guess about how long it will be before something is replaced, and that guess can be wrong. And it’s not necessarily that the GPU wears out and the company has to replace it, but rather that they decide to upgrade to a newer model even when the old one still works.
In the end they have to take the expense of the equipment in some year and depreciation changes the year. If they decide to replace the equipment before it’s fully depreciated then they take the remainder of the expense immediately. Or they could keep running it after it depreciates.