Back testing an HFT algo could very plausibly need 10PB, but I don't see that being co-located with the exchange.

Sadly not in this case though - the Kioxia drives are interesting, but the fact that Dell has put some in a box is much less so.

It is similar to the xAI gas turbines in that it tarnished their image - at least amongst those naive people who saw them as a plucky startup rather than a profit seeking corporation who don't like competition.

I agree with you that the ethics are very different.

Not sure how much it hurts then compared to blocking openclaw though.

Or is that actually his main motivation. Hard to know. Either way it's a win win win for him.

Then again, I also found it rather funny. I suspect this is because I am a bad person.

Actually I think it'll be rare for a manager to be choosing between either a junior developer or a coding assistant, since each are going to benefit the team in very different ways and it'll often be obvious which you need.

What I mean is that at the price levels in the article the coding agent still had a realistic chance of positive ROI. People will pay for things with positive ROI.

Doubtless some people will reduce usage as a result. But Ed seems to find the idea that a 10 man developer team might spend 80K a year on tokens ridiculous. I don't understand this. Has he seen how much developers are paid? If you get a 20% productivity boost from coding agents, then that's two developers for 80K - effectively very good value.

Where things could go wrong is in comparison to cheaper models. If it's 5K a year for Qwen, and it's 2/3 as good will you pay 75K extra for Opus? Perhaps not.