• ChrisArchitect 3 hours ago |
    Related:

    S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48909768

    • spamizbad 3 hours ago |
      One level above junk. Yikes.
      • mschuster91 3 hours ago |
        The problem with Oracle is how much utterly and directly depends on them. They still are the authoritative source on "what is Java" and stuff like SAP directly depends on Java and in many cases Oracle Database (the supported alternatives are AFAIK IBM's mainframe stuff and MS SQL, but I only ever saw Oracle whenever I had the misfortune of having to dig into SAP).

        If Oracle goes down, a lot of businesses are going to be in a lot of trouble, and there will be a lot of fighting over the scraps.

        • cyanydeez 3 hours ago |
          oh no, not the hierarchy of consulting! the horrors. Better grab your nearest gpu and open model to replace them.
        • mattalex 2 hours ago |
          SAP has largely switched over to their own HANA database for new deployments. Even before that their "AnyDB" database worked with pretty much any backend and is still supported. The reason you see oracle has less to do with what SAP wants and more to do with "It's what the company/engineers have already used/set up in the past".

          Regarding Java, SAP has long switched over to openjdk (though oracle java is supported in some cases). Specifically, they have their own custom fork of openjdk "SapMachine" precisely to be independent from oracle (FYI: if you look at openjdk upstream you will see many core contributors are employed by SAP)

          In general, I would say that the actual tech companies that have to interact with oracle's stuff are generally very well equipped to drop them or have already done so. The bigger issue are legacy "consumers" of oracle (e.g. if Pepsi has their data in oracle DB), which often do not have such contingencies.

        • cozzyd 2 hours ago |
          yeah, like my university's whole accounting system...
    • cyanydeez 3 hours ago |
      every stock should have the chance to go to zero if we are to have a true Free Market.
      • superze 2 hours ago |
        Instead they bail them out and let society go to zero. But socialism bad
      • Ekaros 2 hours ago |
        Fundamentally wiping out shareholders and most of bond holders bonds is a good thing. It keeps markets healthy and honest. Excuses about pensions is just excuses from gamblers.
        • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2 hours ago |
          The boom/bust cycle is the Faustian engine of innovation. Take away the risk of busts and we have fake capitalism without innovation or renewal.
    • jollyllama 2 hours ago |
      Damn, that's after it was already lowered last fall. I lack perspective, does that mean it's sinking like a stone?
  • chasd00 3 hours ago |
    From what I can tell, the DC buildout isn't going that well. I've been wondering about the current status of the projects because there hasn't been much in the news or here about new DC's coming online. This report summary makes the point that getting power to the datacenters with onsite generation is running into roadblocks from permitting to even finding turbines to buy. He who shouldn't be named (here) made the same point in an interview that popped up on my youtube feed while pitching the datacenters-in-spaaaace angle. Software people are getting a lesson on the difficulties of utility scale power hardware.

    https://cleanview.co/reports/behind-the-meter-data-centers

    /can't read the article

    • skywhopper 2 hours ago |
      The idea that we can’t get enough electrical power on earth because of supply constraints, but that we can solve that by launching the datacenters and their entire support infrastructure into space makes no sense unless you’re a huckster trying to pump up your space launch business ahead of an IPO. There’s no way we are more constrained on land-based solar+battery equipment than we would be on space-worthy solar+battery+space-cooling equipment plus sufficient launch infrastructure and resources. Meanwhile, our government is paying companies to stop building wind power and bombing sources of natural gas.
      • ai-x 2 hours ago |
        Space Datacenters are an engineering problem (laws of physics allows it)

        Earth Datacenters are a human, NIMBY, ego, misinformation, legal, bureaucracy problem.

        I'm going to bet on Space Datacenters.

        Edit: classic HN lacking imagination and always wrong about the future

        https://youtu.be/FKHENV75b9Q?si=JFBsT2HinR02AI4P

        • _keats 2 hours ago |
          I think the question here is: do the laws of economics allow it?
          • ai-x an hour ago |
            • sumeno 23 minutes ago |
              Oh, well, if the CEO of a company who only exists to try to convince people it is possible says it's possible on a podcast hosted by a VC firm who also wants to convince people it is possible so they can make their money back then it must be!

              I've always wondered who is gullible enough to even bother watching this kind of garbage, thank you for answering that question.

        • dh2022 2 hours ago |
          How much SpaceX stock did you buy? Are you buying this dip?
        • DauntingPear7 2 hours ago |
          How do the laws of physics allow it? How do you disperse the heat? How do you protect your compute from cosmic rays? How do you get enough solar up there without catastrophic damage from micrometeorites?
          • NitpickLawyer 2 hours ago |
            I think the company that has managed to launch and currently operates ~10k satellites can figure those out. Still remains to be seen if the economics make sense, but with increased "anti" stuff happening all around (some of which surely is manufactured) who knows? 5 - 10 years from now things might change.
          • smallerize an hour ago |
            Ars Technica is doing a series on this. They have published 2/3 parts so far. https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/07/how-hard-is-it-to-buil...
        • henry2023 2 hours ago |
          Sending to LEO costs around $2,700 usd and 9kWh of fuel per kilogram.

          If you manage to send a data center with high end processing units, large array of solar panels, even larger liquid cooling and tick shielding against solar rays you’d have spent probably 100x to 1000x the cost of an equivalent earth data center even without considering hardware deprecation.

          You’re better off sinking your data center deep in the sea and even that is probably not happening at large scales.

        • bryanlarsen an hour ago |
          Space data centers require hundreds of daily launches. Disney and the massive industries around Canaveral will NIMBY it hard.
        • Scaled 36 minutes ago |
          Space data centers are an intrinsically cool idea, and honestly I hope we see at least one for the sheer marvel of such a project. But to be cost efficient, it has to be cheaper than rural US, cheaper than buying some island, cheaper than setting it up on a converted freighter ship and tanking the fuel in, etc.

          BUT once Earth has a fully paid off space elevator the unit economics will make sense, or if we have orbital space factories and don't have any lift costs, etc. It's all possible, but at a 50 year+ timescale and immense investment. All of which I hope for because I'd like to see more space development and exploration.

      • chasd00 2 hours ago |
        sheesh i didn't say a datacenter-in-space was a good/feasibnle idea. The point i was making is I feel that building power plants to power a datacenter is turning out to be harder than software people realize and multi-year (or worse) delays likely the result.
      • wmf 2 hours ago |
        For whatever reason, nobody is trying to build solar-powered AI datacenters. Maybe they can't find enough land.
        • quickthrowman an hour ago |
          It takes 2.5 million solar panels to generate 1GW of electricity assuming 400W per panel and direct sunlight. 2.5M times 18 sq ft per panel is about 1000 acres or ~1.55 sq mi.

          That would work for a 1 GW data center, during the day, without clouds, during the summer.

          • downrightmike 43 minutes ago |
            The US gov't owns at least 50% of every state in the west. Or they could just build in the middle of bum f*ck Texas and get fossil and renewables. Too bad Texas' grid is so piss poor
          • 0cf8612b2e1e 25 minutes ago |
            Is that supposed to be a lot? The US is some 3.8 million square miles.

            A decade old Reddit thread estimated there are 60 square miles of just McDonalds. That is, a McDonalds footprint of solar panels alone is 39GW.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2bq7l2/so_i...

        • fckgw an hour ago |
          The space required to install enough solar panels, especially in the places these things are going (like Ohio, where it's NOT ideal for solar generation), would far, far outsize the data center itself by a significant magnitude.
        • treis 10 minutes ago |
          Half the time you get 0 solar power.
      • ww520 an hour ago |
        Space DC make sense when local governments and communities don't want DC built on Earth. Space DC is an engineering and finance problem, not a problem in legal/permission, real estate, power generation, grid delivery, environmental, etc.
        • gtowey an hour ago |
          You think that building out space infrastructure is a less hard problem to solve than bribing a few local governments to get some building permits?
          • panny an hour ago |
            >a less hard problem to solve than bribing a few local governments

            Wouldn't it be best if the data centers were just... good neighbors? Like everyone talking about illegal bribes and impossible moonshots when the answer is just don't suck?

            • lightbritefight 31 minutes ago |
              The issue with this is that datacenters are inherent "suck" machines. It takes a lot more effort and cost for them to not suck then for them to suck, so "sucking" is part of their core design.

              Up till recently, they were a rare enough object that distressed communities still saw the glitz and glam that they are sold with as valuable. Now that brutalist assholes are trying to jam them in every nook and cranny of the earth, word is getting out and people aren't buying it anymore.

              There have been some attempts to try floating or water immersed data centers that mitigate or at least hide some of their suckiness, but these were hard and costly, so the incentives weren't there to do them anyway. Maybe now those ideas will resurface and improve, but I expect "bribe, con or sue rural community to destroy their quality of life" is still cheaper and easier.

            • fhdkweig a few seconds ago |
              We are well past the point of these companies caring about their reputations. People are already losing their homes over this. Here is Penguinz0's commentary on a news report of GA Power eminent domaining someone's home to run a power line through it to power a data center.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bySJ-oVGtvs

        • jonlucc an hour ago |
          Isn't it still far simpler and cheaper to build and maintain a DC in the most rural parts of North America than to launch it to space?
      • mike_hearn an hour ago |
        On Earth it has to be fossil fuels. With solar you can't do it. I haven't done the calculations myself so, full disclosure, AI work ahead. But I asked GPT 5.6 how big a solar and battery farm would have to be to power a one gigawatt datacenter such that it could ride out a few cloudy days in a row (this is far below the reliability bar).

        Its answer is you'd need an "absurdly large battery" and a solar farm of over 100 square kilometers, quite possibly up to over 200 square kilometers. And it would need to be built in the desert.

        Also, normal utility scale LiON battery sites are only meant to provide stabilization services for hours, not days.

        The problem is you have to overspec the solar farm quite a lot because it must not only be able to power a one gigawatt facility, but also generate more than that so it can recharge the battery packs during the day too.

        So this just doesn't work. You think datacenter permitting is bad when it only requires some on-site gas turbines? Imagine the difficulty of getting a 200 square kilometer solar farm over the finishing line.

        No, it's quite possible Elon is going to win this one. Regulation is expensive! He can just fire a constant stream of satellites into space. The constellation needed to provide a gigawatt of inferencing would be about the same size as today's Starlink system, well within the bounds of what he's proven can be done.

        The threat to space based datacenters isn't really the physics of it. It's the risk of a bubble pop that temporarily craters demand and/or an overbuild of terrestrial capacity. Outside of the software industry we don't see huge new blocks of inferencing demand, and OpenAI at least doesn't seem capacity constrained at all right now.

        • abirch an hour ago |
          How do you cool the data center in space cost effectively? Unfortunately in space there isn't a lot of material (air) to transfer the heat.
          • mike_hearn an hour ago |
            You can just use ordinary radiators. Do the calculations, cooling isn't the problem it's made out to be.
            • abirch 44 minutes ago |
              It's the size of the radiators and the expense of getting them up into orbit (along with maintenance)

              Most of my assumptions come from discussions like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46876105

        • bronson an hour ago |
          Why restrict yourself to 100% solar? Solar augmented by grid is pretty great.

          Also, you very conspicuously avoided talking about the difficulty/impact of a 1GW datacenter in space. One might suspect your motives aren't as impartial as you seem to think.

          • mike_hearn an hour ago |
            The whole problem is difficulty getting grid connections on Earth. If you can just hook up to the grid then why not just use it for everything.

            I don't have any motives, what are you talking about? I don't own SpaceX stock if that's what you're thinking.

            What's the difficulty of a 1GW datacenter in space? The number of satellites it requires seems to be within the realm of what SpaceX has already achieved. If the calculations are wrong, by all means say so, I haven't checked them.

            • rented_mule a few seconds ago |
              [delayed]
        • bryanlarsen an hour ago |
          100 square kilometers sounds like a big area. And it is, in continental Europe or in an urban area. In Montana, it's enough space for a few hundred cows. In desert regions, it's worth even less. You can buy 100 square kilometres of unserviced desert land for ~$10M.
    • bespokedevelopr an hour ago |
      If Oracle can't acquire power generation for their WI facilities they've been asleep. Generac is based out of WI and rapidly expanding their manufacturing footprint to match DC demand. Connect the dots to political lobbying and tax breaks to one of the biggest local businesses in an now-recovering manufacturing state to secure generation equipment. A year ago Oracle could've bought Generac outright for less than some of these flailing partnerships they've done.
      • datakan an hour ago |
        Power generation is never the problem. Power transmission is.
        • FireBeyond 41 minutes ago |
          Yeah, power utilities in the DMV area have $20B of projects to try to bring in 3GW of capacity.
  • superkuh 2 hours ago |
    Why submit links to pages that have absolutely no information on them? ft.com is useless and does not display articles. It should probably be on a banlist for HN.
    • Grombobulous 2 hours ago |
      There’s an archive link in the comments, so it’s readable.
  • VonGuard 2 hours ago |
    Oracle cannot possibly be expecting to meet its bets here. My own empirical one-person observation is that my friend worked there in the group that went around the world standing up their new cloud datacenters, and he was there from basically 2019 to earlier this year. They laid him and half his team off earlier this year. Absolutely nonsensical if they're really building out cloud data centers. Because that's exactly what his job was for the previous 5 years....

    Can anyone make that make sense? The team was like 15 people and is now 7. Not exactly a large enough team to build out billions of dollars worth of data centers... Maybe they're just going to contract that all out, but this guy and his team were a very smooth, very well greased machine for standing this stuff up quickly and reliably.

    • throwaway26721 2 hours ago |
      > Because that's exactly what his job was for the previous 5 years...

      Or possibly senior leadership isn’t happy with the pace of DC buildout over the last 5-years.

      • roryirvine 2 hours ago |
        Very unlikely to be the technical build team at fault for that.

        Real estate, legal, permitting, utility connections, construction, plant fit out, testing and certification, security, customs and immigration, and shipping all need to happen first - and every one of those has room for huge amounts of uncertainty and delay, more so if you're doing it internationally.

        There aren't many shortcuts that you can take when you're dealing with a complex combination of hardware, property, and law.

        • fidotron an hour ago |
          Technical staff are easiest to pin the blame on in any given situation. All those other fields require enormously more people skills and political inclination.

          If you are in an org like that and there is an effort to pin something on technical people inappropriately the reaction when there's solid push back approaches total hysterical breakdown since it's so unexpected. Even if the tech staff "win" they'll be marked for the rest of their time there.

        • lokar an hour ago |
          That matches my experience at google. Getting the land and approvals was the most time, then the basic site prep and building shells and utilities, then basic building fit out, and then finally the actual tech installs.
        • VirusNewbie 33 minutes ago |
          yes but sometimes a VP gets fired, new VP comes in, and says "we'll outsource this" or "we'll use this home grown team doing something else" and unfortunately tons of people are caught in a layoff, even if they were good.
        • saghm 13 minutes ago |
          Well I guess we can assume that this means it's not the reason senior leadership laid them off because senior leaders definitely never scapegoat their underlings or have too little competence to correctly assess why things failed!
    • 27183 2 hours ago |
      From my limited second-hand understanding of orcl, a team that operates in a smooth and well greased manner is quite the anomaly. I could see why the company would have an immune response to it.
      • peterbell_nyc 5 minutes ago |
        LOL - too competent for their own good :(
    • pharrington an hour ago |
      Perhaps Larry Ellison is a bad man?
      • bogwog an hour ago |
        Don't anthropomorphize Larry Ellison.
      • jhickok an hour ago |
        Not bad, just a lawnmower.
  • JSR_FDED 2 hours ago |
    Couldn’t happen to a nicer company
    • Zigurd an hour ago |
      Interviewed there early in my career. The vibe was very much off. Ran into the same vibe many years later when a company that acquired a company I founded got bought by Computer Associates. Places where doing good work and making good things seemed way down the list of priorities. I get the feeling I was pitied for naïveté.
      • UltraSane 36 minutes ago |
        That is the exact vibe I got working at a state government IT department.
      • bravetraveler 27 minutes ago |
        > I get the feeling I was pitied for naïveté.

        My experience is screaming 'probably.' Peers have said my preference towards quality over quantity is why I haven't "launched" [ahead of them? unclear]... as if they're nicely retired with drinks on the beach, or something. Completely blind to the fact that our priorities differ and, well, reality/status.

        Long way to say, turn the performative pity right around on 'em. Their boss is a lawn mower: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=38m33s

  • ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago |
    Related:

    Five US tech giants' hidden debts soar to $1.65T on opaque AI funding

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48987863

    • thijson 42 minutes ago |
      I was watching a video recently where the speaker said that a lot of the AI build out debts are off balance sheet, so the bag holder will be the banks if the house of cards comes crashing down. I'm not sure how accurate that is though.
  • cmiles8 2 hours ago |
    Oracle is increasingly looking like the Lehman Brothers of the AI boom. One day it will all go pop and the cards will start crumbling elsewhere in the industry.
    • sudonem an hour ago |
      Except for the part where Oracle is so deeply embedded into the US government, and Larry Ellison is connected enough that they will be granted any and all bailouts necessary to prevent this (while everyone pretends not to notice that such bailouts are socialism)
      • Zigurd an hour ago |
        He will for sure try. Congressional Republicans seem to be more comfortable going off the rez, tho, even before the year-end deadline for shenanigans.
      • overgard an hour ago |
        I imagine they'd be split up, and the essential database business would be what's actually bailed out.
    • le-mark an hour ago |
      Larry’s son runs paramount now, and given he’s driving it to become the next Fox News challenger, it’s a given the current admin will give them a sweet heart deal.
      • tecleandor an hour ago |
        And seems like he has been forcing migrations to Oracle Cloud into at least some of the daughter companies he has bought, even when they've been having way more problems. OCI needs some clients to fill data centers!
      • khriss an hour ago |
        Yeah, but they'll need to time their bust for before Jan next year. There is a significantly lower chance of a Democratic congress being as sympathetic.
        • gavinsyancey an hour ago |
          You're assuming we'll actually have a free and fair election.
    • datakan an hour ago |
      They'll just spin some divisions off and/or sell the DC's they have to Anthropic or others at a profit. They could also just rent compute out at insane margins. They aren't going anywhere.
  • ece 2 hours ago |