Every Muse user is supposed to get their own cloud PC. 2 vCPUs, 8GB RAM, 100GB disk. If Meta actually leaves those boxes on, user growth turns into a chip and memory problem. that’s what i'm trying to size a few thoughts on $META and Muse: Muse is 13 days old and US only App Store downloads are still under 1M on iOS. Add WhatsApp, web, android, mac and you might have 1-2.5M accounts. Most of those are not hot machines. Call live VMs closer to a million Ok, where does this go: - stays messy and US-heavy: maybe 30M in a year - whatsApp works: 25M in six months, 100M in a year - they force it through whatsapp and insta: 250M Let's go with 100M, the middle scenario Those EPYCs have 126 cores. Two vCPUs per user means about 60 VMs per chip if nobody is sharing. Share them and you fit more, and it is less of a private machine. if you leave them 1:1 and always on: today → tens of thousands of chips, 14 PB RAM 25 million → 400k chips, 200 PB 100 million → 1.6 million chips, 800 PB RAM, ~1.6 GW 250 million → 4 million chips, 2 EB 1 billion → 16 million chips, 8 EB $AMD ships on the order of 10 million server chips this year. The whole industry about 39 million. 100 million dedicated Muse users is a visible piece of AMD’s year, and they were already getting called sold out. Next die has more cores, which is how you stuff more VMs on the same chip. CPU time can be shared. That RAM stays reserved if the files are supposed to live on the box. 2026 DRAM is already spoken for, HBM first. 100M users would lock up about 1% of a year’s DRAM bits. A billion users, 10%. Meta’s own power plan is 7 GW this year, 14 next. Training and ads are already in that. The paid tiers do not cover it. Ten million people on $20 is $2.4 billion a year. Last quarter Meta did $60.8 billion, almost all ads, and $31 billion of capex. Full year capex is $130-145 billion. 100 million VMs is $30-50 billion of hardware if you actually build them. So either a lot of those VMs get frozen when idle, or this does not scale as advertised