Climate change, vaccinations, impact of immigration ... people are easily swayed by pundits, demagogues, social media, podcasts, etc. Views on AI aren't always logical. For example, here on slashdot, its seems like a lot of people simultaneously believe that AI doesn't work and that it's replacing human jobs.

Different points of view. Some see an overweight 80 year old man, but some see Jesus or "The Doctor."

The problem is not the incumbent technology per se. These "sleeker" systems can be implemented every bit as easily in the US as elsewhere. The problem is economic. Merchants already invested money into the incumbent systems, which they have to continue to support to maintain their current revenue. The new technology imposes additional costs for minimal revenue because most consumers will slowly ramp up with the new technology. If the new technology could be implemented with zero additional cost to the merchant (and the consumer), adoption would be much easier. Consider how long it took chip/PIN, then NFC payments to be adopted in the US due to economic hurdles.

We're not talking GB200s. Orins are SoCs, with the top power draw of the biggest version at 75W. This is not a heavy or power-hungry system.

"Force-updating", does this require midi-chlorians?

This comment is modded both funny and troll. The true mod should be insightful. However, it's not just MAGA adherents but also people on the left and even apolitical people. Many people surrender their skepticism in politics, science, history, and particularly economics. This is why social media and marketing are so effective, and this phenomenon exited way before AI was a thing.

So, let the companies retain their monopoly over repair and then regulate that repair business as a monopoly, with government oversight, regulation, and approval of all prices and offerings. If a free market doesn't exist, then there is no free market to be enabled by a laissez-faire government approach.

On the other hand, the average gas price in the US has increased from $2.98 to $3.98, an increase of 33%.

"For automakers, the new system promises less expensive software development costs and an opportunity to focus on what matters most to them: branding."

It seems like this statement is not true. Instead of providing a thin client for the phone, the car makers are going to duplicate the phone software in the car. This sounds far more expensive in terms of software development costs. Also, this has no effect on branding. The car is already heavily branded with the car make. I don't think the car makers care about sharing branding with Google. Instead, what matters to car makers is on-going subscription revenue, because that is what will justify the additional development costs.

If the complaint is a lack of developer control, does that mean that if Nvidia can install knobs in DLSS for developers, then you'd no longer have a beef with it?

Does this thinking extend to the stock markets, which are arguably another form of gambling this is now heavily regulated. Are you arguing for the pre-SEC days where there were no required public disclosures and no prohibitions on insider trading?

Imagine what the tobacco settlement would have been like under the current MAGA government. Instead of a deal to essentially heavily tax cigarettes and allow the evil to continue (i.e., a win-win for everyone except for the people that are killed by cigarettes), the tobacco settlement would have been replaced by a government protection law with only a one-time lobbying cost. That would have also resulted in a win-win, where the tobacco companies get to avoid the settlement tax and the politicians get to pocket the lobbying bribes as well as the insider trading jackpots. Of course, more people would get killed by cigarettes and state taxpayers and employees paying health premiums would all lose, but they don't matter.

The answer is that everyone is already doing exactly what you said. Groq is now essentially Nvidia, so even Nvidia is expanding their product portfolio. They offer GPUs (Blackwells and Vera Rubins), inference systems (Groq), CPUs (Vera), and networking (including InfiniBand and ethernet, where Nvidia now has higher data center networking revenue than Cisco). Currently about 70% of Nvidia data center revenue is from GPUs, and that percentage will drop when the Groq systems ramp up.

Yes, the AI customers don't have the money for all the data centers. Even the money-rich hyperscalars don't have the money and have to borrow. However, these hyperscalars are self-funding for the most part and borrowing is only for around 10-20% of their spending. They are being stretched, but a case could be made that they can "handle" the financial strain. Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta have a combined annual profit of over $350 billion, and their actual operating cash flow is over $500 billion.

It's the newcomers (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI) that don't have the huge profits and cash flow. They have to depend on venture capital, private equity, circular "partnerships," etc. However, their levels of spending are far lower than for the hyperscalars, "only" in the $20-30 billion (each) range.

"In its release regarding the changing product plans, Honda was shockingly blunt about its situation, saying that it was simply unable to deliver products that offer a better value than that of newer Chinese manufacturers."

This makes no sense. The only reason to build cars in the US is to sell to the US market. While there are a few minor models available in the US that are made by companies with Chinese owners, there is essentially no Chinese competition in the US market because the all major Chinese models are blocked. So, Honda should have absolutely no worries about competing with Chinese manufacturers today, and with likely future US politics, the same can probably be said many years in the future.