It's quite plausible that it eats radiation. There are bacteria that live inside rocks and eat radiation. That it would be a shield is, however, very implausible.

If they end up somehow building strong AI, then the investment will pay off in huge multiples and will absolutely be worth it.

If they don't manage to create strong AI, but manage to create a better search engine that somehow replaces Google, then it will be worth the investment (for comparison, Google profit is on the order of $100 billion per year).

There are a lot of other potential products that could bring heavy revenue, even without strong AI. AirBnB has $2billion a year in net profit, which isn't great but it's conceivable that even with the current crappy AI product, OpenAI could make a reasonable amount of revenue. With billions of potential customers, they don't need to make a lot of money off each person.

Remind me again, which refugee crisis did Europe clean up?

Hint: if someone blames everything bad on Netenyahu, they are ignorant.

Netenyahu's approach lost the support of the Israeli voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Netenyahu's successor was willing to make a ton of concessions for peace: https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

You simply missed the entire (sarcastic) point, as expected of you.

If they're making so much content then if it was any good wouldn't the locals buy it? So why is this law needed?

It seems like at least one of the three claims is untrue:
* That there is lots of local content
* That it is any good
* Or that the law is needed

Perhaps it is just an attempted money grab aimed at foreign companies?

So you're saying it would be ideal if Disney was forced to push streamers specializing in local content out of business and become a local monopoly?

In your hypothetical, lots of families can in fact afford the $23/m, so Stan would still get a lot of business.

In your proposal they're mostly redundant.

How do you "bribe" somebody to buy something from you? Isn't that called a discount?

Europe decided a couple decades ago this was no longer going to be true, and today it is just laughable to say that this deference exists at all.

That's why most Democrats also want Europe to increase their military spending to a self-supportive level.

Obviously there are political differences between how to achieve this goal. But the status quo is no longer sustainable.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

There are definitely limits because of inflation, but if you look at a list of debt to GDP and economic health of different countries, the US doesn't actually have high or unsustainable debt.

Just a spoiler since so many people "forget," in the Budapest Memorandum each country agreed not to attack Ukraine, and agreed that if somebody else did they would raise the issue at the UN Security Council. Nobody offered any security guarantees regarding the behavior of other signatories.

German Euro bonds are cheaper than US bonds, so you better rethink your economic theory (and stop watching youtube).

That is not clear at all. Russia keeps threatening to nuke UK because they don't ignore European opinion.

Here is how the researchers themselves say it:

Don't conflate the arrogant headline with knowledgeable researchers.

That was sad. It didn't change things. The peace process went forward, and Palestine rejected the two state deal.