I mean, the… ‘funny?’ part… is that there is a significantly greater than 0 chance that that data center was directly involved in target analysis and assignment into the kill chain, for deliniating strikes against Iran.
A number of sites in Iran have been hit, with precision munitions… that make no sense.
Well, they make no sense, unless your man in charge of target assignment.. is an LLM.
Unfortunately it is also pretty profitable for Huang, becuase they don’t own the datecenter, they sold the parts for it, and later they will sell more for the new one.
I agree that in the short-term, NVidia stand to make more money as a destroyed datacenter prompts it’s owners to rebuild it. However, until the armed conflict stops, there might be a pause on datacenter construction in the region - why pay to (re)build a datacenter if it’s probably going to be blown up again? From my (admittedly limited) reading of history, most reconstruction only happens in the years following an armed conflict’s end.
American-owned sata centers are actually legal targets, because they’re used to process intelligence and provide strike targets. They’re basically equivalent to a CIA office. Israel also does this.
American tech companies provide cloud computing and AI services to both the US and Israel, and obviously these services work through data centers, meaning that some data centers somewhere are legal targets, but it’s impossible to know which. I’d argue that this makes all data centers run by relevant companies for cloud computing and similar services valid military targets.
Since when was fucking Israel a guide on how to conduct legal war?!? Christ.
No no, as in: Israel also uses AI assisted targeting like America.
So, would you say Russia is legitimate in striking infrastructure like power plants which are mostly used for civilian purposes but might power military buildings as a small percentage of their use?
Would Iran be justified, if it had a nuclear weapon, of dropping it on Tel Aviv, wiping out the civilian population alongside the Israeli Air Force headquarters?
Proportionality is a key concept in military planning. It’s not the case that one drop of military utility makes something a legitimate target. It’s certainly not if you only know that the minority military use is somewhere among many different locations and just bomb any of them on the off-chance.
By this logic, schools are valid targets because they are educating future CIA recruits and Walmart is a valid target because it’s providing the food to fuel them.
Great the US also launched an illegal war in Iraq, ever hear about that Sun Tzu guy? Call me crazy but an illegally invaded country no longer has to follow the rules of war, the whole idea of a social contract.
Nope, that’s not generally how the laws of war work.
I say “work” but because there’s no international police force to arrest anyone for breaking it, this is more like philosophical theorising, but that’s how it’s conceived of, still.
To take the social contract analogy, if someone steals your phone, you generally have the legal right to use reasonable force to get it back, and if the thief gets hurt, tough shit. But if you track him to his house, burn it down and sodomise him, you’re a psycho and going to jail.
Domestic law recognises exceptions for actions that are otherwise illegal to try and rectify another cringe; prosecuting a war in self defence is similarly an exception to the general prohibition on war, but “reasonable force” is analogous to “proportionality” - you don’t get the right to carpet bomb Dubai because you got missiled by the USA.
Considering the valuations are based on non existent future data centers, I don’t see why they couldn’t continue to be based on nonexistent past data centers.
Huh? Why? Much of their income is from western data centers housing TikTok, Temu, Alibaba things (including AI), etc. They’re milking the west, doubt they want the communications to downgrade
Blåhaj PieFed
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
I mean, the… ‘funny?’ part… is that there is a significantly greater than 0 chance that that data center was directly involved in target analysis and assignment into the kill chain, for deliniating strikes against Iran.
A number of sites in Iran have been hit, with precision munitions… that make no sense.
Well, they make no sense, unless your man in charge of target assignment.. is an LLM.
‘Police Park’.
Its… a park. Mostly empty space.
But it has Police in the name.
So it gets a couple of tomahawks.
… On that note: Gunshots By Computer.
By my reckoning, 2025 was Year Zero.
That album has been feeling more and more relevant
It never wasn’t.
let me know if you can hear this image
Ah, Saul Williams.
Iran targeting hyperscaler data centers would be a decent strategy given how much money is sunk into AI at the moment
Given how heavily nVidia have reinforced their positive position on war, any data center is a valid target. Not even joking.
Literally and completely, wholly valid targets of war.
Thanks Jensen Huang!
Unfortunately it is also pretty profitable for Huang, becuase they don’t own the datecenter, they sold the parts for it, and later they will sell more for the new one.
I agree that in the short-term, NVidia stand to make more money as a destroyed datacenter prompts it’s owners to rebuild it. However, until the armed conflict stops, there might be a pause on datacenter construction in the region - why pay to (re)build a datacenter if it’s probably going to be blown up again? From my (admittedly limited) reading of history, most reconstruction only happens in the years following an armed conflict’s end.
Not how the laws of war work, not even when you don’t like the targets.
The USA launched an illegal war, Iran retaliated illegally (targeting civilian infrastructure, of uninvolved countries), USA is escalating illegally.
American-owned sata centers are actually legal targets, because they’re used to process intelligence and provide strike targets. They’re basically equivalent to a CIA office. Israel also does this.
Got any evidence of that? If so, then I agree targeting them would likely be legal.
Since when was fucking Israel a guide on how to conduct legal war?!? Christ.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/03/iran-war-heralds-era-of-ai-powered-bombing-quicker-than-speed-of-thought
American tech companies provide cloud computing and AI services to both the US and Israel, and obviously these services work through data centers, meaning that some data centers somewhere are legal targets, but it’s impossible to know which. I’d argue that this makes all data centers run by relevant companies for cloud computing and similar services valid military targets.
No no, as in: Israel also uses AI assisted targeting like America.
So, would you say Russia is legitimate in striking infrastructure like power plants which are mostly used for civilian purposes but might power military buildings as a small percentage of their use?
Would Iran be justified, if it had a nuclear weapon, of dropping it on Tel Aviv, wiping out the civilian population alongside the Israeli Air Force headquarters?
Proportionality is a key concept in military planning. It’s not the case that one drop of military utility makes something a legitimate target. It’s certainly not if you only know that the minority military use is somewhere among many different locations and just bomb any of them on the off-chance.
Oh, and ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Because they train your guys?
They train your cops too.
By this logic, schools are valid targets because they are educating future CIA recruits and Walmart is a valid target because it’s providing the food to fuel them.
Great the US also launched an illegal war in Iraq, ever hear about that Sun Tzu guy? Call me crazy but an illegally invaded country no longer has to follow the rules of war, the whole idea of a social contract.
Nope, that’s not generally how the laws of war work.
I say “work” but because there’s no international police force to arrest anyone for breaking it, this is more like philosophical theorising, but that’s how it’s conceived of, still.
To take the social contract analogy, if someone steals your phone, you generally have the legal right to use reasonable force to get it back, and if the thief gets hurt, tough shit. But if you track him to his house, burn it down and sodomise him, you’re a psycho and going to jail.
Domestic law recognises exceptions for actions that are otherwise illegal to try and rectify another cringe; prosecuting a war in self defence is similarly an exception to the general prohibition on war, but “reasonable force” is analogous to “proportionality” - you don’t get the right to carpet bomb Dubai because you got missiled by the USA.
And compared to the schools the US/Israel target, far fewer civilians.
Considering the valuations are based on non existent future data centers, I don’t see why they couldn’t continue to be based on nonexistent past data centers.
If oracle loses enough data centers maybe they will need their people back
If Oracle were deserving of their name, they would have foreseen this whole thing.
They laid those people off precisely to afford more data centers. If they lose more, they’ll have to lay off even more people probably
The next phase of data center evolution had missile defence systems built in. ——Skynet origin story, probably.
How long until we get a Larry Ellison series on Behind the Bastards?
If I was China I’d offer a bounty for every data center.
Huh? Why? Much of their income is from western data centers housing TikTok, Temu, Alibaba things (including AI), etc. They’re milking the west, doubt they want the communications to downgrade
Replacing all those datacenters is going to be very profitable.
So the PC parts situation will only get worse.