The last time I looked, oil and gas drilling was done with strings of pipe a few inches in diameter. Unless they're proposing constructing everything in a ship-in-a-bottle fashion, the bore-hole is going to need to be more like a mine-shaft - which is certainly doable, but is not going to be nearly as easy or cheap as they claim.

As well as the reactors, they've also got to get the heat-exchangers, turbines and generators down there too - all of which will require regular maintenance.

Oh, and then it's all got to be connected together.

Finally, they've got to have mile-long cables to bring the power to the surface - which need to be capable of supporting their own weight when strung vertically.

I suspect they're going to burn through a whole load of VC/investor cash before quietly folding and moving on to the next grift/scam/exciting project.

...the advertising and telemetry/data-slurping functions continue to work perfectly.

They legally stifled competition.

I wonder how much it cost in "campaign contributions"...

Certainly.

To begin with, I'm not suggesting that there was no VHF/UHF TV broadcast signal in NYC, just that I was not able to receive it.

Specifically, in the three apartments I had - Battery Park, Upper East Side and NoHo - there was no provided antenna drop from the roof, no way to hang an antenna from outside a window, and building construction/location/apartment orientation/whatever meant "rabbit ears" were insufficiently successful.

Friends with houses in Brooklyn & Queens were able to receive OTA, although the picture quality was what somewhat "meh" by comparison to cable. In Manhattan, no-one I knew bothered with trying it.

Cable provides a simple one-stop, one-bill solution for a lot of people's TV and internet needs - they had it growing up, so it's something they understood and saw no reason to change. Now they're aging out, and their kids - and grandkids - are looking elsewhere, which is why cable's numbers are in decline...

FWIW, when I lived in Manhattan, the choice was cable or nothing. No OTA, and broadband was only just becoming a thing - I was the first in my building to get it - so streaming was a long way off and time-shifting broadcasts was still done with magnetic tape. Now, get off my lawn...er...window box.

No, but I have seen CAN$1, €1 and £1 coins after 10+ years in circulation, and they're fine if a little scuffed.

The implication is that the US Mint can't - or just doesn't want to - make durable dollar coins.

The €1 coin costs about twice as much to produce as a $1 bill relative to face value, and will last perhaps 20 times longer in circulation. If the US Mint can't produce a cost-effective $1 coin, perhaps that's the issue that needs addressing.

What kind of cheapskate doesn't at least use a $20 for that?

Then don't put them in your prison purse...

...$1 bills only last 5 years, whereas coins last decades. So, coins are a more cost-effective solution than $1 bills over their respective lifespans.

Does anyone remember 2007/8? Some banks bundled up various forms of debt - some good, most bad - and sold them on... it all ended badly for everyone except the banks.

AI is a bubble waiting to burst, and DB deserve to take a bath on their AI/DC debt.

You would have thought that the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association would have known what they're talking about.

My source is episode 39 of the "Executive Disorder: White House Weekly" podcast from the fine folks at "It Could Happen Here". Their sources are in the extensive show-notes at the link.

Runkle did several videos on this case a few months ago, the first of which is here.

Er... yes, it does. That's exactly what it means.

Increasing efficiency in this context means making the same amount of product for less cost, making more product for the same cost, or even more product for less cost.

All these mean increased profits.