this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
303 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

85615 readers
3286 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] whereitsat@lemmy.zip 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

market research firm lol. get a real job.

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

To anyone who has imposter syndrome: Imagine being able to say shit like this and call it a career?

You can do it. I have faith in you.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago

Imagine being able to say shit like this successfully and earn enough to call it a career.

That skill is not very common.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 16 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

That will result in massive order cancellations at NVDA, MU, AVGO, SNDK, etc., because no one needs the chips, networking, memory, or processor power," he added.

Well that is just false as there is pent up demand in the consumer markets that should be more than enough to make chip makers good money but I guess they don’t consider us regular folks real customers anymore

[–] C4pt41n_Pr0xy@lemmy.world 15 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

But graphics cards, CPUs, RAM, and other components needed in data centers are a far cry from the same components used in home and office desktops and laptops. It’s like trying to sell parts used in F1 race cars on the consumer car market. Technically, there will be buyers, but the vast majority of these parts will remain unsold because demand for such specialized components is negligible in the general consumer market.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure if it's fully a bubble, or if the bubble is partly being used as a smoke screen to hide the upfront cost of redesigning computing infrastructure.

A lot of the time, I think AI is just the branding layer. The real goal is top-to-bottom SaaS.

Like, they're letting these AI companies hold the bag for building datacenters which will then get scooped by various companies like microsoft and google to offer virtualized home computing through a client.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 6 hours ago

Didn't we fight a cold war over this? The Soviets wanted a top down internet and it was more expensive and less capable

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Especially since those parts carry a significantly higher premium than consumer parts.

and you know nvidia isnt gonna sell the shit at a reasonable price.

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's not interchangeable though. I don't need an A100 at home.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What I meant was changing their production capacity to consumers.

My point was that chip manufacturers will have customers besides AI, not that the data center chips will have other customers

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, hopefully, but even if the AI bubble bursts today new consumer chips is a year away at least.

(Sorry for being a cynic, I'm saving up for a graphics card for my nephew and I'm bitter.)

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I keep hearing this from people and it's not true. People want GPUs for playing games not running AI so the backlog of chips isn't useful to anyone.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 3 points 13 hours ago

If nvidia had 0 AI chip buyers I will guarantee you they will come running back to consumers until the next fad.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 14 hours ago

Pent up demand at a much lower price point.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

No business does anymore. I maintain that's why all the cars are the same 4-6 colors these days. Black, white, grey, and silver aren't offensive to the corporations that buy fleets. Blue and red have to be there so they can do "patriotic" displays.

Oh, and I'm really quite sorry to all of you that hadn't noticed that all the cars are the same colors these days. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

It's been this way for decades, this is not a new phenomena and it is not a conspiracy - these things are driven by consumers.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

I know it's been a thing for decades, but even in the '80s I could still walk on a lot and find yellow, green, orange and purple cars. These days it seems those are all special order.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 31 minutes ago* (last edited 29 minutes ago)

The few sources I looked at point to paint having gone up in price significantly since the 80's, I also know that there are tighter regulations on paint (lead banned in 78 in the U.S. for example). I think dealerships started charging more for specific colors, and ultimately most people don't view their cars as symbols of freedom anymore. Who cares what the thing that brings me to my job looks like? I'd give it and more up to be able to live without working.

I don't think it's about all businesses not giving a shit, times have just changed. If cars being black, white, silver, and grey is the price we pay to not have lead (and other things) in paint — I think it's a fair trade off.

Edit: Some definitely do not give a shit. Nvidia seems to be a business that does not give a fuck who got them to where they are.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

And here I am with my douchebag orange car right next to my super candy apple green wrapped wagon...

Yeah, I can't stand cars in colors that aren't colors.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They're all going with weird grey clay colours. Often in mat. It's really weird and I don't like it.

I should be able to tell someone what colour my car is, I don't want to have to go, oh well it's a sort of dull concrete but slightly bluer.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

That was the biggest thing I liked about my SAABs. No matter what color they were, no other car in the lot looked like that.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Terrible headline. The AI bubble will definitely burst, but stocks being undervalued is not "exactly" (or even approximately) "how the dot-com bubble burst". The bubble refers to overinvestment by overly optimistic opportunists overestimating the market, and it burst when thousands startups that failed to make a profit ran out of venture capital at about the same time. This is what's going to burst the AI bubble - it's just a question of when. The stock value thing, as the article itself explains (kind of), is just a symptom that investors are starting to sense/fear this getting near.

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 12 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, been hearing this for a year.

Starting to worry it's all... doomerism hype?

Nah.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

When there’s a bubble, at first you hear “hmm this is weird maybe it’s a bubble”. Then more people start saying ,”yeah it looks like a bubble”. Then more people start analyzing how it IS a bubble. All the while big investors are like, “ I know it’s a bubble but right now I’m making bank, so…”. Finally, after those investors decide it’s been a good run, they cash out and the bubble truly starts bursting.

So right now everyone knows it’s a bubble. What we’re seeing is the big investors trying to squeeze every last billion out of it.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Finally, after those investors decide it’s been a good run, they cash out and the bubble truly starts bursting.

This time they wasted so much money that they're trying to foist the bad investments on retail investors with overblown valuations and IPOs before cashing out.

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 5 points 16 hours ago

Yeah, heard it all before, and I'm very familiar with the structural "curiosities" of the existing investment landscape.

Very few people correctly called the problems with 2007-2008. Not none, but few. And with soooooo many people mindlessly on the "it's a bubble!" bandwagon so early, a lot of accuracy and legitimacy is lost months or years beforehand for no other reason than why conspiracy theory people say "we'll get UFO disclosure this year!" Or "This year the Cubs/Arsenal/Red Sox will do it!" It's just the thing they say until one time they're right.

I'm not telling you it won't happen in a sense... But it's not going to happen how or when you think. IMO, you're looking at a partial stuttering effect maaaaaybe late winter like Q1 2027, and that's about it. There's to much alternate demand for everything LLM companies are already buying up to create a full and similar bubble like the Dot Com bubble.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Dot-com bubble took about 5 years before it burst, and that was crazier. Why would you think this one would pop quicker?

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 7 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

You're talking about from buildup to crash, though. As if everyone just looking at literally any large investment and saying "it's a bubble!" is dong anything other than being a broken clock right twice a day.

I follow conspiracy theories extensively, and people have always predicted a huge, massive economic collapse next year - every year. On Art Bell, it was a constant, reiterated prediction every year from 1994 until 2013. It's only the ones that happened to say it in 2006 or 2007 that rode the credit of "actually predicting the 2008 crisis!" Even the ones saying it before the Dot Com bubble didn't get it right because their doomerism made all predictions "end of the world" level.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago

I haven't heard this much bubble talk ever. It's not the same prediction made by the same people again this time. I don't even know anybody irl who likes vibecoding (myself included) who thinks this is sustainable.

Even the ones saying it before the Dot Com bubble didn't get it right because their doomerism made all predictions "end of the world" level.

I don't know what you're trying to say. People had bad takes about that bubble so all bubble scepticism is discredited? But it popped, which means all these investors had bad takes as well. So...

Nobody worth listening to thinks this bubble is going to be worse than the dotcom bubble. It's simply not that big to begin with. I guess there's some wishful thinking too, but what's the alternative to this investors-expected AI growth? Everything except the AI market crashes?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Except people did predict the crash, they could see it coming and they made bank out of it. They made a movie about it.

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 2 points 12 hours ago

That movie was about 20 people copying one guy

[–] rozodru@piefed.world 236 points 1 day ago (8 children)

"If a company isn't making as much money as quickly as it, and investors, thought it would" that's the sign, saved you the click.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

It really was a waste of an article. I think I am dumber for having read it. It failed to provide any real information on what was seen preceeding the dotcom bust. Just some super generalizations of no value.

Also, it refers to these mythical investors who supposedly think about earning potential and all that. Most really don't. They invest because they think the stock will go up. And usually that has more to do with if they think others will buy it than the Financials of the company. SpaceX is a great example of that.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 8 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Which is a useless metric in today's market, since none of the AI companies have made a single cent yet, in fact they are bleeding billions, but are still receiving billions in investments, most of it from other AI-involved companies.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago

The companies being talked about are the picks and shovels guys. Sandisk, Crucial, Nvidia, Oracle. The ones that should actually be making money now, and so far have been.

Jesus Christ, it's not even a long article, you can just read it and know this stuff before you comment.

[–] hopfi@lemmy.world 93 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Exactly what I expected from Business insider..

[–] Danarchy@lemmy.nz 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m beginning to think they don’t actually have anyone on the inside at any businesses

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago

Opposite... The call is coming from INSIDE the business!

[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Duh, aren't we passed this situation yet? Millions and even billions of workers should've been replaced by now. Many problems including coding: solved.

Or are investors really this patient and resilient when it comes to hollow hype?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inari@piefed.zip 29 points 1 day ago

Incredible insight

[–] NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I mean, I agree that the market left fundamentals behind years ago. But when increasing numbers of transactions are handled by robo-advisors all working on similar parameters and institutional ownership is something like 71% of the DOW, can we expect the same result as in 2000?

Billionaires aren’t going to roll over and go bankrupt - they will manipulate the stock market to make it look like the economy isn’t failing. A crash and government intervention isn’t impossible, but I suspect we are already wallpapering over the mess - note that central banks say “markers of recession” rather than “recession”, because then it can’t possibly be real. They would prefer that the 30% of shares owned by us plebs aren’t panic sold so the problem stays invisible, but if it is, they will buy up the shares at a discount and continue to trade them among themselves with fictional dollars that have been loaned into existence.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But that isn't how greater foolism works. It doesn't matter how stupid one is, as long as there are others more stupid.

[–] Supamanc@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent!

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And the question is always when the market switches from irrational to rational, and the answer is "nobody knows."

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

It's when someone figures out they can make a lot more money if these companies fail

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

If even the goddamn BusinessInsider comes to this conclusion, I wonder why they don’t also realize that all stock market transactions work this way today. None of this has the slightest connection to the real world anymore. Stock prices are determined purely by how many billionaires—or rather, their concentrated capital—are betting on which companies. And here’s the key: They always win, because even with the most absurd business ideas, they can drive up the price, which only crashes after the super-rich have sold their shares.

This makes it very easy to understand why the dumbest people in the world never lose money, as long as they’re rich enough.

Humanity is footing the bill for this, and it’s now becoming very clear just how high that bill is.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

When financial publications are giving advice on how to trade inside a bubble, that's a leading indicator that the bubble is about to pop.

load more comments
view more: next ›