The funding was tied to women and minorities only, so no veteran option. Also I would have had to get certified for that specific location which involves a third party that comes in and interviews the women / minorities to make sure they have actual positions of power and were not just figureheads. They had a scale down option so they could opt for a very small purchase that would actually be smaller than the audit cost let alone the cost of passing such an audit.
I’ve used Spectrum and their predecessors since the 90s. Never ran into this, although the upstream speeds are ridiculously slow, and they used to force Netflix traffic to an undersized peer circuit.
You can only do it during growth phases or if there’s complimentary products with margin. The story I was told about Office 365 was the when they were using spinning disk, exchange was IOPS-bound, so they had lots of high volume, low iops storage to offer for SharePoint. Google has a similar story, although neither are really unlimited, but approaching unlimited with for large customers.
Once growth slows, churn eats much of the organic growth and you need to spend money on marketing.
Anything Musk or Altman say is just about raising money. Nothing they say can be taken at face value. There’s a funny interview with Mark Anderseen, where he talks about how he never looks backwards and doesn’t have any sense of introspection and then gets into a rambling and completely wrong history lesson. That’s what these guys do.
The better question to ask is what happens after the end of OpenAI/Tesla/etc? AI may take your job away, but not because of robots replicating your labor, just good old-fashioned economic collapse.
Blame then then. Simple as that. Lying to "just raise money" is one of the most harmful ways of lying. It distorts the whole economy.
> There’s a funny interview with Mark Anderseen, where he talks about how he never looks backwards and doesn’t have any sense of introspection and then gets into a rambling and completely wrong history lesson. That’s what these guys do.
Yes, we know they are psychopaths and assholes. The blame is on them.
It generates economic activity and taxes in the US and suppresses wages.
Most of the H1 candidates are in shitty roles that are well defined low/moderate skill jobs for giant companies. Hire people whom you can’t actively exploit and those are the kind of jobs where unions can organize.
The alternative is offshoring the work, not hiring Americans.
The smart thing would be to just let people immigrate. Instead we have a weird tiered system with a small number of highly skilled specialists and an army of serfs facing deportation if they piss off the bosses.
Then offshore the work. Americans aren't getting the jobs anyway and the imported labor now competes for things like groceries, gas, housing, etc. which drives up prices.
Look, I can make a solid economic argument against offshoring and how certain business practices hollow out local economies.
However immigrants are a net increase in investment and GDP. Yes - terms and conditions apply (its economics, when do they not)
Immigrants have to pay rent, buy clothes and groceries from wherever they live. This creates demand which depends the consumption economy. These are positive growth levers. This is despite whatever work they do in that region.
In contrast, asset prices like house prices rising, because they have become stores of wealth, are a different deal altogether. In that situation house owners benefit from just holding onto property, and not renting. The asset appreciates all the same.
The issue which can be brought up is wage depression, and paying immigrants under the table. This should depress wages for American labour.
One solution for this is to increase minimum wage, and to ensure that everyone is paid minimum wage.
This is a simplified model of the situation, but in general immigrants put more into the system than they take out.
FYI, these jobs pay the highest in the world. If these jobs are exploitative, then so are other non tech jobs that employ citizens and pay lower wages.
My former organization employed ~750 contractors developing software.
Their billable rates ranged from $44-76/hr in 2022. The people in the cafeteria probably made more. They get minimum viable salary like indentured workers in hopes of getting a green card and more opportunity.
Well yeah, trades suck ass. There are alot of dudes in cushy well paid office gigs extolling the virtues of trade work.
It wasn’t some awful conspiracy, physical trade jobs are hard work and with no pensions or benefit protection, there’s a lot of guys struggling when their bodies are broken at 40. In the 80s, most urban trades were unionized with benefit funds etc. Not the case in 2026.
And a bunch of tech peeps are overweight physically out of shape with other health effects as bad as what you're saying about trades. Humans get old.
I know plenty of trades people that do hard work and think cushy office gigs are hell on earth and that type of work sucks ass. Just because it's not your preferred career doesn't mean you should denigrate those that do. Besides, if there were no trades, you'd have no place to live, you'd have no food to eat, you'd have no car to drive, and you'd have no internet as who was going to build that infrastructure?
Im not denigrating anyone. I worked dairy farms from age 7 to 23.
It’s a brutal lifestyle and I’ve seen my share of hardworking, broken 50 year olds trying to make it mostly on the lesser paying job their wife is left with because raising kids with a dad who’s out the door at 5am and home at 7pm is brutal.
I think the notion that's being challenged is that a college degree is an automatic way out of "dad who’s out the door at 5am and home at 7pm", no matter what the degree is for and who is getting the degree; or that being credentialed and unemployed is better than that.
Yeah Google has a fundamentally broken engineering organization because some influencer dude thinks they should vibe code, with technology those presumably incompetent engineers substantially invented.
You're thinking like an engineer and making the laughable assumption that "prediction markets" are markets. It's totally unregulated with all sorts of grifts and cheats. One of the platforms was promoting a high-return bet against Rory at the Masters yesterday.
You can make money off of all sorts of stuff. You can "sell" the bets, so there's lots of live pump and dump.
We've gone full circle. The bookie with no neck that smelled like onions was more honest than these platforms.
The issue with them in addition to time is a huge capital expense that needs to be amortized. Nobody wants to hold 30-80 year debt on giant capital projects that could be rendered obsolete.
For commercialization, solar makes more sense as there is a much better return on capital.
If I were king, I’d do socialized power and have the government capitalize and own the nuclear plants, and bid out the operations to private entities. Government has better debt economics and doesn’t care about return in monetary means.
Even then, relatively small tweaks to tax law and some grid investment would create a solar boom at lower cost. Every Walmart parking lot and some road infrastructure should be covered with solar. Interstates could be utility and generating corridors - they aren’t because federal law makes any multimodal use very difficult.
> Nobody wants to hold 30-80 year debt on giant capital projects that could be rendered obsolete.
There isn't really an "obsolete" after it comes online because things get built when expected revenue exceeds construction costs + operating costs, but once built (or close enough to completion) they continue to operate as long as revenue exceeds only operating costs because by then the construction cost is in the past. When the construction cost is large, the amount the price of electricity would have to decline to fall below operating costs is equally large. And investing in something where you expected a positive ROI and you ended up with a slightly negative ROI clearly isn't what you'd have preferred, but it isn't nearly as bad as the -100% ROI you'd get from shutting down the plant instead of selling it for slightly less than what you put in. There's a reason the US is not only continuing to operate 20th century nuclear plants but even looking to reactivate some of the ones that have already been decommissioned.
Moreover, solar has the same problem. You invest in a solar farm because you're expecting to profitably sell power at current prices, but if e.g. the AI thing turns out to be a bubble then there will be oversupply and current prices won't stick. Solar also has the added "everybody is doing it" risk. If you and everybody else add solar then the price at times when solar output is highest is going to be lowest and vice versa, i.e. if too many people invest in the same type of generation then your output gets inversely correlated with the market price, which is bad for ROI.
I think you’re misunderstanding the economics at a fairly basic level. The cost to build is funded through debt that’s paid off over time. The construction costs aren’t in the past; they’re in the present, and in the future, in the form of debt payments.
Think of it this way: if you buy a house, the “operating cost” is fairly small: upkeep and painting, mostly. Does that mean you can buy a house, move out of your apartment, and quit your job, because your cost of living has just dropped a few thousand a month?
No, of course not. Upkeep isn’t the real cost of buying a house. The real cost is the monthly mortgage payment. Unless you were already independently wealthy, you have to keep your job. Sorry.
The cost of energy for a nuclear plant is the cost of paying back the loans. As other forms of power generation get cheaper, those loans stay the same, making it harder and harder for nuclear to compete. As they get squeezed out of the energy market, they have to raise their per-watt prices in order to continuing to service the loans.
Think of it like this. You rent your house to your cousin, who pays you enough to cover the mortgage. But then your cousin finds a sweet deal couch-surfing in the tropics in the summer. He stops paying you for June, July, and August. You can’t get anybody else in your house during that time, so you say, “Sorry dude, you have to pay more for the rest of the year. I’ve got bills to pay.” That works great until your cousin gets tired of your high prices and moves out, and now you’re left with a mortgage to pay and no one renting it.
> The cost to build is funded through debt that’s paid off over time. The construction costs aren’t in the past; they’re in the present, and in the future, in the form of debt payments.
That isn't a future cost, it's a past cost with a future payment date. It's like taking out a mortgage on a piece of land to buy some lumber and build a house on it. The past cost is buying the lumber; the hardware store isn't going to give you a refund six months after you already paid them and used the lumber to build the house. What you have now is a house instead of money and separately a mortgage against the house.
What do you think happens if you don't pay the loan? Is the bank going to get a refund from the hardware store? No, they're going to take the house, sell it to someone else for whatever they can get for it and apply the money to the loan. And then the house continues to operate as a house.
The same thing happens with a power plant. If the plant company itself has a bank loan and isn't making enough to pay it, the bank is going to foreclose, sell the plant to someone else, possibly take a partial loss, and the new owner -- who might have gotten the plant for a lower price than it originally cost to build -- is going to continue to operate it as long as its revenue exceeds its operating costs.
And that's assuming the plant was funded with a bank loan. If it had investors then there is no loan payment; the "loan payment" is when the company pays the owners dividends. If they were expecting the plant to pay enough dividends to recover their initial investment plus interest and its operations only generate enough revenue to repay most of the original investment but no interest, then they continue to operate the plant (or sell it to someone who does) because "recover 90% of the original money instead of the expected 200% of the original money" is still significantly more than "recover 0% of the original money by closing the plant".
What happens if the operating company can't pay the debt? The bank repossesses the facility. Now what does the bank do with a solar facility? Does it (A) let it rot, losing massive value, (B) run a bulldozer through it, destroying massive value or (C) find a way to operate it, receiving profit from doing so?
The bond covenants usually tie it to revenue and external factors. With a solar facility, it's pretty cut and dry -- the if the operator fucks up, they default, the bondholders take a haircut and someone buy the asset at auction.
With a nuclear facility, the capital costs are ridiculously high and the facilities are too big to fail and too impactful to close. So the ratepayers and taxpayers get stuck with it. In New York, the state is providing $33B in subsidies to keep 4 nuclear plants that are hemorrhaging money online.
That's why my opinion is that they should just be public assets. Let the state or federal government make some revenue instead of sending billions of mid-cycle capital to Constellation energy.
An even better option is to partner with a veteran owned entity, which often allows you to bypass the bidding process.
reply