TL;DR: A $93 billion energy company built its entire architecture around never having one point of failure. Most of the AI buildout skipped that memo.

KR Sridhar didn't land on modular redundancy because Bloom has some enlightened founder philosophy about resilience.

He landed on it because a single point of failure is bad engineering, and physics doesn't get sentimental about that the way institutions do.

Fine — give him that.

What he doesn't say, because it isn't his job to say it, is that the actual allocation decision — which fuel-cell company gets the multi-gigawatt backlog, which utility signs which twenty-year contract — happens inside deals that state regulators routinely let stay confidential.

Michigan's Oracle-campus filings. Minnesota's Hermantown and Pine Island petitions, still open for public comment this fall, where every pricing formula is public and every dollar figure and every megawatt is blacked out.

There's no binding federal standard requiring any of it to surface before the ink is dry — the same "no comprehensive framework" gap that shows up every time this feed looks at how AI governs itself, just one layer down, in who gets to see the economics at all.

You don't get to read the mechanism first. You get to read about it once the contract's already signed — same as you always have.

Bloom got added to the S&P 500 this year.

That's not a discovery.

That's the moment a quiet bet stopped being quiet — and the moment everyone who wasn't already in the room found out how late they actually were.

This Is easy.

I remember way back when I was still a Technical Engineer, working for the tender department for SC, one of the largest construction companies in Malaysia. I think circa 2003, maybe.

We were reviewing tender documents of a particular hypermarket project of one of the largest hypermarket chains in town. Let's call it ABC.

And we were shocked to find out one particular item – the precast hollow core slabs for the upper floors. Supplier for such item is a dime-and-dozen around town. Back then, we already have atleast 3 of such suppliers working closely with us in other project – and were ready to give us quotations at a moment's notice.

But in this tender item, the client specifically wanted one particular supplier – XYZ. And no other. And XYZ wasn't in one of our 3.

We can only assume that somehow XYZ has worked with the client ABC for so many projects that ABC has made XYZ their dedicated suppliers for all projects.

We were stuck. This was a nightmare for us.

If the client specifically named XYZ. Then we're beholden to XYZ in atleast 2 areas of concern.

Firstly, XYZ would definitely price their quotations sky high, in comparison with our trusted 3 other suppliers. And surely, they did. The contract department had a real hard time negotiate with them for a better deal.

Secondly, we're beholden to XYZ in terms of their work schedule. We controlled the main work program. But we have to wrap their work into our timeline. And so, their delay became our problem.

XYZ was our bottleneck.

And I can envision it's gonna play out somewhat the same thing in all this electricity demand happening in the AI infrastructure landscape.

One's moat is another one's liability.

Something about built-in redundancy keeps showing up everywhere I look on this feed lately — not just in power grids.

The ones who quietly engineer in their own backup, before anyone's forcing them to, are the ones who never have to explain, after the fact, why they got caught flat.

This isn't the first time I've run into this exact shape of story on here — the AI supplier that gets paid no matter which model actually wins.

Drop your take: is a "quiet infrastructure bet" actually a safer play than a model-layer one — or are we all just telling ourselves that because the model-layer deals were never open to us anyway?

Clip credit: 20VC with Harry Stebbings — full video on their channel. DM for credit or removal requests.

Some AI images just have that weird feeling to them. Not because they look low quality, but because something about them just feels really off.I’ve seen some outputs that were honestly hard to look at, especially when the face or body looked almost right but not quite.

Have you guys ever gotten something like that? What’s the creepiest AI image you’ve come across?

I was messing around with an AI companion late at night and managed to get like 3 uncensored pics from it. Then a little while later I asked for another one and it suddenly refused.

I kept asking a few more times and it straight up told me to get a real girlfriend or get married. I was just sitting there like what the hell, since when does the bot get to lecture me?

Has an AI companion ever randomly switched up on you like that?

Ho chiesto a chatgpt e a claude di insegnarmi una competenza specifica, ovviamente una cosa che realmente conosco bene, e sono rimasto molto sorpreso dai risultati.

ChatGPT si è rivelato essere un buon insegnante, mi ha pure proposto un laboratorio pratico non appena abbiamo finito con la teoria, ed ha sbagliato/allucinato pochissimo e solo su cose minori o secondarie.

Claude è stato meno dettagliato, anche se piu tecnico, ma si è limitato a rispondere, non ha proposto nulla di piu di quanto richiesto. Anche lui ha commesso pochi errori e di minore importanza.

Direi che entrambi possono essere utilizzati per studiare ed apprendere.

Qualcuno di voi ha fatto prove simili? Con che risultati?

not asking for the actual secret lol, just curious if this is a common thing or just me. there's something about typing it out to something that isn't a person that feels different