The real opponent of digital sovereignty is "enterprise IT" marketing, according to one Red Hat engineer who ranted entertainingly about the repeated waves of bullshit the industry hype cycle emits.

During a coffee break at this year's CentOS Connect conference, The Reg FOSS desk paused for a chat with a developer who was surprised but happy to find us there. We won't name them – we're sure that they'd prefer to keep their job rather than enjoy a moment of fame – but we much enjoyed their pithy summary of how IT has faced repeated waves of corporate bullshit for at least 15 years now, and how they keenly and enthusiastically anticipate a large-scale financial collapse bursting the AI bubble.

This vulture has been working in the tech field for some 38 years now, and the Linux developer we spoke with has been in the business nearly as long. We both agreed that the late 20th century – broadly, the period from the early 1990s onward for a decade or so – had mostly been one of fairly steady improvement. Then, they suggested, roughly following the 2008 credit crunch, we've had some 15 years of bullshit in tech.

Because nothing says "fun" quite like having to restore a RAID that just saw 140TB fail.

Western Digital this week outlined its near-term and mid-term plans to increase hard drive capacities to around 60TB and beyond with optimizations that significantly increase HDD performance for the AI and cloud era. In addition, the company outlined its longer-term vision for hard disk drives' evolution that includes a new laser technology for heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR), new platters with higher areal density, and HDD assemblies with up to 14 platters. As a result, WD will be able to offer drives beyond 140 TB in the 2030s.

Western Digital plans to volume produce its inaugural commercial hard drives featuring HAMR technology next year, with capacities rising from 40TB (CMR) or 44TB (SMR) in late 2026, with production ramping in 2027. These drives will use the company's proven 11-platter platform with high-density media as well as HAMR heads with edge-emitting lasers that heat iron-platinum alloy (FePt) on top of platters to its Curie temperature — the point at which its magnetic properties change — and reducing its magnetic coercivity before writing data.

One of the reasons Amazon is spending billions on robots? They don’t need bathroom breaks. Arriving a few minutes early to the public tour of Amazon’s hi-tech Stone Mountain, Georgia, warehouse, my request to visit the restroom was met with a resounding no from the security guard in the main lobby.

Between the main doors and the entrance security gate, I paced and paced after being told I would have to wait for the tour guide to collect me and other guests for a tour of the 640,000-sq-ft, four-story warehouse.

Amazon offers tours to the public at 28 of its 1,200 US warehouses – a recruiting and public-relations tool to boost brand trust and address criticisms of poor working conditions. It was something to consider as I wound up having to go in the parking lot, propping open my rental car door for privacy.

Bathroom access is one of the most notorious criticisms of Amazon’s treatment of workers. Amazon delivery drivers and warehouse workers have reported having to pee in water bottles due to lack of time and access, and have even said their bathroom breaks are timed.

Zoe Hoffman, an Amazon spokesperson, said it was “absurd and false to connect a visitor’s tour experience to that of our employees”, adding that workers were allowed “regularly scheduled breaks” throughout their shifts.

None of this will be an issue if Amazon’s multibillion-dollar robot dreams come true.

After what were surely some very intense negotiations with himself, Elon Musk has decided to merge his rocket company SpaceX with his AI and social-media company xAI in what amounts to a $1.25 trillion tie-up. Combining two of his companies into a new mega-corp supposedly worth more than the sum of its overvalued parts is a classic Musk move. His last self-merging coup came last year when he combined X and xAI. Along with frequent capital raises, Musk’s vertically integrated takeovers of his own properties allow him to continue to pump up the values of his start-ups. In December, SpaceX was valued at $800 billion. Less than two months later, for the purposes of this deal, it was valued at $1 trillion, with xAI considered to be worth $250 billion.

SpaceX sealed the deal by issuing $250 billion in new shares that it handed to xAI’s shareholders. The move effectively diluted the holdings of existing SpaceX shareholders. The New York Times summed up the parlous bargain: “SpaceX’s longtime backers were forced to shrink their ownership in the company drastically, as a percentage, to pay for the acquisition.”

That would infuriate most investors, but thanks to the circular nature of Musk’s corporate economy—otherwise known as the Muskonomy—and his frequent reliance on the same group of financiers, some of SpaceX’s investors were already xAI investors. (SpaceX is also expected to raise at least $50 billion in a public offering this summer.) Minting new SpaceX shares is supposed to buoy the entire enterprise while saving Musk the trouble of pursuing more conventional ownership models that involve real dollars.

For years, we watched Silicon Valley executives perform elaborate corporate theater about “values” and “belonging” and “bringing your whole self to work.” If you were skeptical that any of that was real, well, congrats.

Aaron Zamost, a longtime tech communications exec, has a piece in the NY Times that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the tech industry’s sudden, conspicuous rightward lurch. His argument is refreshingly blunt: this isn’t about ideology. It never was. It’s about leverage.

There are many theories about Silicon Valley’s swift, and very conspicuous, rightward turn. Tech leaders course-corrected from an overly permissive era. The Trump administration demands fealty in exchange for critical regulatory favors. Mr. Trump’s re-election reshaped the national climate and reoriented the values of tech leadership.

Each of these explanations is convenient, but none are correct. I’ve worked in tech for 20 years, across both Big Tech and venture-backed start-ups, and I can tell you the truth is much more mundane. Silicon Valley’s chief executives have always been driven by economics, not ideology. As Michael Corleone put it: It’s not personal — it’s strictly business.

Were Epstein and Bannon really building a crypto-funded far-right coalition of pro-Russian dictators across Europe? Or were they just LARPing as kingmakers with each other over email? And does the distinction even matter if other powerful figures seemed to believe in their project?

It is nearly impossible to not get pulled deeper down the rabbit hole while reading through Epstein’s emails. Because, whether or not he did directly influence elections across the globe, he was trying to. And he had the means and the access to believe he could. But even if we stick to what we know from previous investigations and what can see in his newly-released emails, the reality, stated plainly, is, frankly, insane. But these are the facts:

Epstein, possibly the most prolific sex trafficker in human history, spent the last decade of his life investing in technology that would help Russia, as he wrote in a 2013 email, “leapfrog the global community by reinventing the financial system of the 21st century.” He was fascinated by websites like 4chan and technology like Bitcoin and was personally invested in the success of far-right politicians in the US and Europe. He believed he was months away from ushering in a new world order that would allow him to continue with his monstrous passion projects, like creating a super-race of children with his own DNA and building fascist nation states to manage overpopulation and climate collapse. And he wined and dined the world’s most powerful men (none of whom seemed to have an issue with these ideas), inviting them to his island and his ranch, and made sure they were surrounded by an endless supply of young girls. And I’m just not sure what we’re supposed to do with that knowledge.