But the sourcing isn't any more detailed, just independent rather than just re-reporting the WSJ story.

If the former, yes, the are other outlets reporting this with independent sourcing (e.g. The Information).

And presumably the GP thought that saying the maintainer had access to Mythos made it a more compelling argument. Otherwise why even mention it?

> A quick peek at their S-1 filing shows a $5B annual loss last year. Unless SpaceX is selling compute to Google at a 50% margin (unlikely but possible), they’re not going to turn a profit because of this deal. Any profit that does result will be small.

The cost of AI data centers is almost entirely the capex (10% opex, 90% depreciation), so the costs aren't meaningfully affected by whether the DC is idle or operating at full load. They're renting their DCs to Anthropic and Google for a combined $25B/year. The loss of the AI division is about $2.5B/quarter. The math is pretty obvious.

> Google’s equity investment and P/E multipliers are irrelevant and have no bearing on SpaceX’s profitability.

Indeed. But the OP did not claim that either.

> This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year.

And that is pretty obviously correct. This deal is Google is buying a service from SpaceX for $920M/month, not investing in SpaceX. And that is revenue for SpaceX. I don't know why you're so insistent it isn't.

And in this specific case, selling shares to Berkshire at a 5% discount has a pretty clear signalling effect.

Because you seem to be saying that Anthropic not changing the price of Opus is bad, but then two of your positive examples are Gemini 3.5 Flash (which tripled the 3.1 Flash token prices) and GPT-5.5 (which doubled the GPT-5.4 price, and is slightly more expensive per token than Opus).

Is your argument actually that price hikes are good? That doesn't seem to fit with the general tenor of the message.

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

Power matters, but what matters is power availability not cost.

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

It is purely a test of capabilities (can it do a thing that takes a human $X hours), not efficiency (how fast will it do it).

They also aren't just the rocket and satellite company any more, but include Twitter and xAI, both of which would contribute heavy losses.

Guess we'll find out soon enough!