Business

The smart ring maker has confidentially filed its Form S-1 ahead of an IPO, and it plans to potentially go public this year, Bloomberg reports. Oura also said Wednesday that it’s “on pace” to pass five million paid subscribers this quarter.

Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary is one of the investors backing the Stratos Project, a colossal data center in Utah. It sounds like he has a few fans in the comments section.

The company reported record overall revenue of $81.6 billion and record data center revenue of $75.2 billion, driven by continued demand for its chips in AI data centers.

Joe Rogan accidentally asked a hard question! He noted that Andreessen has said that the people who are running AI haven’t done a good job explaining AI’s benefits. He asks Andreessen to do it. Andreessen’s pitch appears to be “thinking is too hard.” Well, increasingly, I do believe thinking is too hard… for Andreessen. The rest of us — you know, normal people — are thinking just fine.

The deal is valued at $100 million according to Puck, and would add a US-based brand to Shein’s portfolio after President Trump ended the de minimis exemption on cheap imported goods. If true, that’s a notable pivot for Everlane, which until now has built its brand around sustainability.

The UK’s competition and markets regulator has cleared the deal to go ahead, on the condition that Shutterstock sells its global editorial business, including Backgrid and Splash. This clears a path to finalize the merger, as it was already granted “unconditional antitrust clearance” by the US DOJ in February.

I enjoyed reading this story about Bill Gates’ malevolent influence on the current crop of Silicon Valley megalomaniacs. If you remember his pre-Gates Foundation reputation, you will particularly appreciate it.

Even with the FTC’s click-to-cancel rule vacated (but possibly coming back?), it has reached a settlement over Shutterstock’s subscriptions that allegedly required a phone, chat, or email conversation to get out of.

Just kidding! But some news organizations are offering prediction market affiliate codes — and publishing thousands of stories pushing gambling deals. Popular Information reports that news orgs owned by Advance Local (including The Oregonian and The Cleveland Plain Dealer) are on track to run more than 14,000 pieces of “gambling slop” this year promoting deals for sportsbooks, casinos, and prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi.

Earlier this week I wrote about the social media “clippers” that get paid to semi-covertly promote podcasts, TV shows, and other media through anonymous accounts. One of the clipping campaigns was for Perplexity AI — but nobody can tell me who, exactly, is responsible for the clips:

You know how only one company in the entire world makes the machine that makes the world’s most advanced chips — and only three companies control the world’s supply of RAM? Reuters reports that Big Tech is trying to buy Big RAM’s favor in exchange for some of those machines, among other “unprecedented” offers.

Everything is gambling, but not everything in gambling is going great, as CNBC reports that on Wednesday, FanDuel CEO Amy Howe was “ousted from that post after five years at the company.” FanDuel’s stock is down 60 percent over the last year, and DraftKings shares are down 30 percent.

A report by The Information says that for the US-licensed arm of the prediction market, chief executive Justin Hertzberg “appears to be CEO in name only,” despite his protestations to the contrary.

Fubo TV’s earnings seem to show the impact of the NFL, as the Q2 subscriber count dropped from 6.2 million at the end of 2025 to 5.7 million three months later, which is fewer than the 5.9 million subscribers it had at the same time last year. Still, revenue was up one percent.

Data center sales are now “the primary driver of our revenue and earnings growth,” according to CEO Lisa Su. AI agents are increasing demands for CPUs, and AMD and Intel’s x86 industry group recently announced a new instruction set, AI Compute Extensions (ACE), to help close the performance gap with GPUs.

Every three months, we get another round of financial updates from publicly traded companies like Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon, but the Trump Administration is pushing to lower that requirement to every six months. The argument in favor of changing it claims that quarterly reporting is a burden on small or medium-sized companies, despite the risks of weaker monitoring, as Reuters and WSJ report.

Wu is still identifying documents. Two jurors have some real thousand-yard stares going on.

We are now looking at assorted legal documents with him. We have determined the board has approved the agreement of 2018, which is the initial formation of the for-profit OpenAI LP. OpenAI Inc. contributed assets and in result got the limited partner interest and “residual interest.” This seems to be mostly about reading stuff into the record.

Molo asked a very narrow question about texts or emails about removing Musk from the board. Then he accused Brockman of making up the explanation after the fact because of the trial. OpenAI’s lawyer pulled out two sentences from the same entry: “real decision is fire Elon” and “We seem converged on the ‘fire Elon’ route.” Pretty good from OpenAI’s lawyers, and very annoying / misleading from Molo.

For instance, yesterday, Brockman gave a long spiel about the setup of OpenAI that only tangentially involved Musk. Altman and Sutskever were portrayed as being in the middle of things. Molo effectively said that and then pointed out that Musk’s money was key. Brockman objected both to the summary, and to the idea that Musk’s money was key. Come on, dude. We aren’t idiots.

It’s not clear to me why Musk’s ultimatum matters? Musk says he won’t continue funding until he gets a firm commitment. Brockman testified he never made that firm commitment, and Musk didn’t resume his quarterly payments. There were clear continuing negotiations about how to raise money, including whether Tesla should get control of OpenAI and whether there should be an ICO after this email. What are we doing? I am at this point genuinely lost.

We have been talking about whether or not Greg Brockman made an initial investment into the for-profit. If we all agree that the for-profit has a different investment base than the nonprofit, I don’t get what the conflict here is? The nonprofit is effectively an investor in the for-profit, though the investment was in kind. The nonprofit still exists. Right now I am trying to figure out whether I find Brockman or Musk more reliable, and I think the answer is, it’s going to depend on who is most supported by other witnesses and documents.

The problem is that the chronology of Brockman’s negotiations with Musk is now working against him. We have multiple emails and texts with Musk proposing that he be in charge, followed by Musk withholding funding unless Brockman and Ilya Sutskever did what he wanted. Brockman might be motivated by profit — I certainly think so! — but Musk’s actions are what they are: high-pressure negotiating tactics that failed. It seems to me that Musk’s lack of involvement with OpenAI’s for-profit is self-inflicted.

“Did you practice them?” Molo is really not into the various ways that Brockman is objecting to the wording of his questions. I’m not sure how sympathetic the jury is to either of them. They seem pretty stone-faced.

Brockman is being really squishy about this — I mean, he did say that he thought Musk was going to hit him at one point. Molo is I think trying to make the point that Musk was being “hardheaded” in negotiations. He’s also saying that Brockman wasn’t familiar with corporate governance. And he is, notably, raising his voice at Brockman.

Greg the Bard, who told long-winded stories about how wonderful OpenAI is, is gone. “False assumption baked into the question” is the go-to currently.

Musk’s lawyer, Molo, is saying that first of all, Brockman actually did the layoffs, and second of all, a memo prepared by Ilya Sutskever contained criticism of Brockman as a manager. Shortly after the memo was prepared, Brockman was removed from the board.

Musk’s team is getting another crack at Brockman.

Microsoft is low-key my favorite part of this trial? Their opening statement was just like, an ad for Microsoft products. Almost all questions, including of Brockman, are like, “Did Microsoft play a role in the founding? Did it participate in the creation of a for-profit entity?” (No, obviously.) It is so funny, like they are going to at any moment turn to the jury and say, “Now why are we in this?”

Brockman says he was told he was removed from the board in an eight-minute call, and not given a reason why. He was also told Sam Altman was fired. Shortly after, he quit. “The board’s actions felt wrong to me. Wrongly conceived, wrongly executed.” He thought that he’d start a new AI company with Sam Altman. Several other people quit alongside Brockman and they started planning their new company. Satya Nadella called to ask if something terrible had happened, and Brockman said no. So then being a startup within Microsoft was an option too. But ultimately, as we all know, Brockman went back to OpenAI.