Nikita Buyanov

The $480,000 Paperweight in Wyoming When the US Government put the Cheyenne supercomputer up for auction, the tech world held its collective breath. At its peak, this machine was a titan of computational power, once ranked among the top 10 most powerful supercomputers globally. However, after seven years of service in Wyoming, the hammer finally fell at a price of $480,085. For many, this seemed like a bargain—a chance to own a piece of history that could still crunch numbers with the best of them. But as any seasoned systems administrator will tell you, the purchase price is only the first entry in a very long list of reasons why you should never buy a used supercomputer. The logistical reality of the Cheyenne supercomputer is a nightmare of industrial proportions. We are talking about 28 racks, 14 of which weigh 1,500 pounds each. These aren't just server cabinets; they are E-Cell liquid-cooling units that have spent the last several years developing a reputation for leaking. To move this beast, you cannot simply rent a U-Haul; you require a professional moving company vetted for high-security data centers. Once you get it home—assuming your home has a reinforced concrete floor and industrial-grade zoning—you are met with a power bill that would make a small city flinch. Under load, this machine draws 1.7 million Watts. Even at a conservative estimate, keeping this thing's "digital veins" flowing with electricity would cost upwards of $60,000 per month. From a hardware perspective, the internals have aged like milk. The system is built on Haswell-grade CPUs paired with DDR4-2400 RAM. In a world where NVIDIA RTX 4090s can deliver massive GPU compute for a fraction of the power, the Cheyenne supercomputer is essentially a collection of outdated E-waste. Modern supercomputing has shifted toward GPU acceleration and massive memory pools for large data sets—features this machine lacks. The $480,000 price tag isn't a valuation of a working computer; it is a scrap price. The buyer is almost certainly an eBay recycler looking to rip out the cabling for copper and part out the individual CPUs and RAM modules to desperate legacy server owners. Tarkov’s $250 Betrayal and the BTR Solution Battlestate Games recently found itself in the middle of a community-led firestorm after the release of the "Unheard Edition" of Escape from Tarkov. For years, the studio sold the "Edge of Darkness" edition for $150, promising players that they would receive all future DLC for free. When the $250 Unheard Edition arrived with exclusive features like a new co-op PvE mode and significant in-game advantages, the community rightly called foul. The developers initially tried to argue that the new mode wasn't DLC, but a "feature," a semantic pivot that failed to appease anyone. In a desperate attempt to fix the optics, the studio introduced the Legacy Device. This in-game item allows players to call in a friendly BTR (an armored personnel carrier) for fire support. This is arguably worse than the original problem. Escape from Tarkov built its reputation on being a hardcore, realistic tactical shooter where survival is precarious and earned through skill. Allowing players to pay real money for an item that summons an armored vehicle to do their dirty work is the definition of Pay-to-Win. It shatters the game's internal logic and lore, where you are supposed to be a stranded mercenary cut off from support. Perhaps most damning is the resurfacing of old comments from Nikita Buyanov, the head of Battlestate Games. In a 2015 interview, he discussed a philosophy where keeping players in a "state of discomfort" was essential to drive "donations" (microtransactions). If players are frustrated—whether by the game's difficulty or the presence of Cheaters—they are more likely to spend money to gain an advantage. This cynical view of player retention explains much of the current friction. When a developer views their community not as players to be satisfied but as cattle to be pressured into spending, the quality of the product inevitably suffers. The community has responded by accelerating Single-player Tarkov and Multiplayer Mods that allow users to host their own servers, effectively cutting the developer out of the loop entirely. The PSN Mandate and the Death of Accessibility While Battlestate Games was busy setting their reputation on fire, Sony and Arrowhead Game Studios decided to join the fray with Helldivers 2. Months after the game’s massively successful launch, Sony announced that PC players on Steam would now be required to link a PlayStation Network (PSN) account to continue playing. On its face, it’s a standard, albeit annoying, data-harvesting requirement. However, the move has catastrophic implications for a significant portion of the player base. PlayStation Network is not available in every country where Helldivers 2 is sold on Steam. Players in regions like the Philippines or the Baltics literally cannot create a PSN account without violating Sony's Terms of Service by using a VPN or lying about their location—both of which can lead to a permanent ban. This effectively means Sony sold a game to thousands of people only to revoke their access months later because they cannot fulfill a post-launch account requirement. It is an egregious example of corporate oversight that prioritizes user metrics over actual user experience. The "democracy" the Helldivers 2 community loves to meme about is being stifled by a very real corporate bureaucracy. This isn't just about the inconvenience of an extra login; it’s about the fundamental right of a consumer to access a product they paid for. When platform holders like Sony enforce these rules after the fact, they erode the trust required for digital-only storefronts to function. If a game can be taken away at any time for failing to comply with an arbitrary account linking rule, then the concept of "owning" digital software is officially dead. Shrimp Jesus and the AI Slop Pandemic Social media has always had a spam problem, but Meta is currently presiding over a new, weirder era of algorithmic decay. If you spend any time on Facebook lately, you’ve likely seen them: bizarre, AI-generated images of Jesus made out of shrimp, or hyper-realistic toddlers with six fingers "making" complex wood carvings with their own hands. These images often garner tens of thousands of likes and thousands of comments from users who—frighteningly—don't seem to realize they are looking at AI-generated slop. This isn't just a curiosity; it’s a sign of Dead Internet Theory in action. These posts are designed to exploit the Facebook recommendation algorithm, which rewards high engagement with even more visibility. The accounts posting them—often with names like "Love God and God Love You"—are clearly automated farms. Meta has recently announced changes to no longer recommend "ripped off" or "reposted" content, promising more visibility for original creators. However, they conveniently seem to have a massive blind spot for AI spam that they themselves are arguably fueling with integrated Meta AI tools. Even Twitter (or X) has descended into a similar pit, where every popular post is followed by a string of offensive, AI-driven bot replies or pornographic ads. It has reached a point where corporate environments have to consider whether these platforms are even safe for work use. If a social media manager cannot look at their own brand's mentions without being subjected to pornographic AI bots, the platform is no longer a tool; it is a liability. The promise of the internet was a connected, human-centric space, but we are currently drowning in a sea of synthetic content that serves no purpose other than to keep us scrolling through a graveyard of digital artifacts. The Fallout of Tech Consolidation While we distract ourselves with AI shrimp, the US Department of Justice is closing its antitrust case against Google. One of the most shocking revelations of the trial is the sheer scale of the "default search" economy. Google pays Apple roughly 36% of its Safari search ad revenue—totaling $20 billion in 2022 alone—just to ensure Google Search remains the default. Apple, a company that centers its entire marketing identity on user privacy, is essentially being paid billions of dollars to hand its users over to the world’s largest data-harvesting machine. This hypocrisy is at the core of why tech consolidation is so dangerous. When companies like Apple and Google reach this level of market dominance, they no longer need to innovate or respect the user. They simply need to maintain their walled gardens. Competition is the only force that breeds genuine innovation, and right now, the tech industry is more interested in gatekeeping than building. Whether it is NVIDIA squeezing board partners, Meta drowning us in AI sludge, or Battlestate Games trying to squeeze $250 out of their most loyal fans, the trend is clear: the user is the product, and the product is breaking. We need to stop being "fans" of trillion-dollar corporations and start being discerning consumers who demand actual value for our money.