Comment Re:Cause it's fuckin cool bro (Score 1) 26
Realistically the two things that will make it happen are
1. China is doing it
3. Billionaire joyrides
Realistically the two things that will make it happen are
1. China is doing it
3. Billionaire joyrides
What's wrong with spending $100 billion to do something cool as shit?
Heck, Americans have spent that much this year paying for Trump's tariffs!
But would we? If WB goes under and its bones get picked apart by Netflix and Paramount and whomever all that content doesn't go away, those producers get rehired, we're down a streaming service anyways, their catalog an assets are split up what did we as consumers lose out on long term? More fragmenting and siloing of content? I guess some convenience is lost but really do we lose or is most of the loss for the shareholders?
Everyone starving equally might be worse.
Except there is faaar more than enough for everyone. Nobody needs to starve.
They would like to sell you a cloud storage subscription, but they do give you the option to use local physical storage (or iCloud) instead.
Reolink here too. They support open protocols and work locally with no internet access. Picture quality is decent. You can record to your own server, or fit an SD card, or both.
What this really tells us is that the number of people that can get by on their own income is decreasing while the cost of things is increasing. Overall, inequality in the US is rapidly increasing.
Only if NVidia chooses to make such a case.
Greed is never satiated.
But they won't, because 1) NVidia gets to sell stuff that previously they couldn't,
After exports start, they will have established the basis that their product is not a threat to national security. This will give them all the leverage they need to file a suit against the US government.
2) Huang (like the whole tech sector) is such best buds with the President these days.
No because greed is never satiated.
These examples were illustrative
Yeah, they are but not in the way you think. They don't really back up your claims, I mean this is the strongest claim in all of them and depending on the meaning of "drastic" it's not an automatic given that reducing the size of cattle herds and operations is a bad thing at all.
Considering the externalizes beef should probably cost more than it does in my opinion. Why would a decrease in beef consumption be a bad thing at all? A higher floor price on beef means we could regulate out some of those worst types of operations, they only exist to hit the cheapest costs.
In a similar vein I can't help but feel the argument over climate change for 30 years has been just a variation of this:
Gyre is a more official name for the Pacific Garbage patch, as there are presumably few kids in it
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. - W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876