Wednesday, October 28, 2026

Back to today

From X

@convequity 4 clicks

Convequity on X

We think hardware manufacturing and chip costs, more than launch, will decide how much $SPCX earns from orbital compute. Our SPCX model estimates how much orbital compute can be made and launched, what it costs and what it earns as it ages, then adds that revenue to our forecasts for SpaceX's launch, Starlink and Cursor businesses in our SPCX DCF. Each year, deployment equals the gigawatts of solar and AI computing hardware the supply chain can make for orbital data centers, capped by what Starship can carry. In our base case, launch is the tighter limit only in the first four years of the forecast, and manufacturing is the limit after that. Our base case puts chips and racks at about 80% of the cost to build each gigawatt and launch at about 11%. Solar arrays, satellite structure and laser communications make up the rest. Because chips make up most of the cost and launch only a small part, whether SpaceX uses merchant GPUs, custom chips or makes its own chips at Terrafab will matter more to returns than how cheap launch gets. Revenue per gigawatt depends on the business model, and we assume it is higher for selling AI services through an API than for renting out compute. Revenue falls as the hardware ages, and we assume each satellite is replaced after a 7-year life. The model's price-cut settings let us test price competition. We think Chinese companies could use their own launch and computing infrastructure to offer cheaper AI services internationally, pressuring the prices U.S. AI companies charge and what they can pay for capacity. The U.S. and China could also tie access to their AI services to defense and trade relationships. Countries with ties to both, including India and some Middle Eastern states, could keep access to U.S. and Chinese providers and negotiate lower prices.
@StableBread 2 clicks

Fajasy on X

I tried to work out who’s behind the AI data labeling companies that approached Nubeva Technologies $NBVAF (TSXV: $NBVA). CEO Randy Chou didn’t name the data labeling companies (firms that turn experts’ knowledge into training data for AI labs) or the customers behind them. “If a data labeling company’s coming to us, somebody behind them is asking,” Chou said, adding that the customer typically isn’t limited to cybersecurity companies. OpenAI is one potential candidate, since my previous write-up concluded that the frontier model Nubeva got access to in September was most likely OpenAI’s, through its Daybreak program for vetted defenders. OpenAI launched GPT-6 Astra on September 3, 2026, the day Nubeva announced its access. It’s the first model OpenAI rated Critical for cybersecurity capability. But access to OpenAI’s model wouldn’t prove OpenAI is also behind the data labeling companies, since any lab building cyber models could want labeled malware. Among data labeling companies, three of the largest are publicly recruiting or selling binary analysis expertise, the skill of figuring out what malware programs do: → Scale AI: Its product manager posting calls the cybersecurity portfolio “a product line that does not exist yet” and says the hire will recruit “malware analysts.” → Turing: Sells CyberBench, security tasks for training and testing frontier models, with malware analysis and reverse engineering among its ten categories. TechCrunch called Turing “a key coding provider for OpenAI” in March 2025. → Mercor: Recruits security experts, preferring reverse engineering or binary analysis backgrounds, and counts OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta $META as customers. OpenAI cut ties with Scale in June 2025, after Meta bought 49% of Scale and hired its founder, Alexandr Wang. So if OpenAI is behind the approach, Turing and Mercor are the likeliest data labeling companies, since both sell to OpenAI and already sell or buy binary analysis expertise. Either way, these data labeling companies are worth $2.2-29B, so even Turing, the smallest, could pay the top of my $12-19M sale range for Nubeva for less than 1% of its last valuation.

Danaher’s robotics era

Danaher’s new CEO paired a Q3 beat and raised EPS outlook with a 2027 4%-5% organic-growth starting point, while pitching AI-enabled…

Meta Earnings, Muse and the Frontier, Musebook

Meta’s earnings hinge on whether investors back Zuckerberg’s Muse vision and the compute spending required to build it.

ORCL Update

Oracle rose about 12% intraday on October 28, 2026 as AI infrastructure and cloud-demand sentiment improved and credit-spread concerns…

Anthropic Deep Dive

Anthropic’s $80.7 billion first-half loss was mostly fair-value marks, while $16.3 billion revenue and compute economics showed a $974…

My Last GFL Update - Hopefully

GFL’s take-private structure hinges on BC Partners rolling 60% of its stake to preserve debt portability under the 40% permitted-holder…

Right-Sizing Memory

Micron’s AI memory demand depends on workload-specific accelerator designs that shift bits among HBM, GDDR and LPDDR, changing wafer…

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts

Investor letters we follow

190 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.