Optimally, there should be a credit based system that counts seconds or so. Per program pay is probably more realistic though.

It is a waste to pay for total availability, when the real use can be much less, and 99% of the content is uninteresting.

Logically if you were to watch everything 24/7 you would pay the full price.

This code was made available (if less than lawfully, nobody who matters complained) over ten years ago; I believe the conclusion of that story is here.

See the bottom line? Start firing to meet it, don't figure out how to properly run the business.

So instead we need to allow a compromised federal government to enrich el Bunko; there are a lot of energy projects in need of federal approval, each of which will cost them dearly and allow el Bunko to peg his Grift-O-Meter again.

You seem to be assuming that el Bunko is doing this for something other than money. Look at the list of "contributors" to his East Wing destruction: Apple, nVidia, Oracle, etc. They are all big tech companies and they all love H1-Bs. I don't know if el Bunko is paying them back or doing it in expectation of future contributions to his whims (most importantly his wealth). My guess is both. Why H1-Bs? Because he wants whatever he wants NOW, he doesn't give a flying rat's ass about investing in the future like increasing money available for education. That would take planning and implementation that takes years, nothing he is good at (is he good at anything beyond collecting rent by shaking down people lower on power curve than he?); his attention span is akin to a gnat's and so he cannot fathom it.

As usual with el Bunko, when in doubt, set the Grift-O-Meter bar as low as you can and he'll find a way to limbo under it. And never forget that those in his "businesses" widely admit he cannot read a balance sheet. That explains his bankruptcies (how does one bankrupt casinos? Who knows but he found a way.) It also explains him honking on about how he's collected over $19 Trillion in tariffs. If you do not understand the ludicrousness of that number, you missed the last 50 years, go back and start over.

Karo is not HFCS , but yeah, lot of kitchens have hydrogenated oils (a.k.a "shortening", also "margarine"), artificial colors ("food coloring"), and flavors (vanillin probably is most common). HFCS would be unusual in a home kitchen, but "invert sugar" is less so and pretty much the same thing. Sucrose itself is already highly processed, it doesn't exactly come out of the beet as a white granular substance.

The UPF thing is woo, by people who should know better. At least the bro science people know they're bro science people. Or it's just a scam.

Pretty odd to complain about the Dutch being the US' bitch on an article on how they just bent over to the Chinese.

I do consider taxation theft, there is no purpose to it except for controlling the population. The fact that people accept different *levels* of theft depending on how much money they make just proves how much of theft it is, because they more money someone makes, the fewer people there are in that category of people, given that, it is easier to structure theft in such a way as to convince the majority that they don't suffer as much as the other people, who are hit with a much bigger crime.

I doubt that would ever come to pass. The insurance companies will do a "deal" with car manufacturers to include a data collection thingy defaulting to on, and then you will get charged by the insurance company for getting it turned off.

As always with el Bunko, look for the trail of bread crumbs back to his pocket. I guess Constellation hasn't heard the number 1 rule of el Bunko: he destroys everything he touches.

If you are a programmer and you are given clear instructions on what is expected, then yes. If you are a programmer and you are not given clear instructions, then no. However if you are technical lead/architect then you really should be responsible for it.

OTOH if you are a programmer and you raise these concerns then you are on your way to become a technical lead/architect.

In my systems I insist we keep a database table of various common passwords (tens of thousands of these) and we do not allow people using them as well.

It is like saying: someone will do some work for free, because they like it, lets then make sure that we take away the product of their work, they don't need it anyway. How is that a moral stance, how is it good economically? People feel a certain way if someone tries to steal from them. One thing is to work, even if you don't have to, but to understand that the result of your work is yours. It is a completely different proposition to enslave someone just because they can survive without keeping the results of their work. Practically speaking, if someone sees this type of attitude, they choose a different jurisdiction to do their work, where there won't be such blatant abuse.

I disagree with this approach because I am against theft. Whatever an individual can create for himself is his to do with as he desires, not anyone else. I don't understand this sentiment, is there anything in it except for envy?

OpenAI and Anthropic are betting that this time will be different, that the payoff will come fast enough to pay back the investment. Google is betting this somewhat, too, but Google has scale, diversity and resources to weather the bust -- and might be well-positioned to snap up the depreciated investments made by others.

I think this makes sense. OpenAI pays Google for compute, Google uses that to build more DC capacity. If OpenAI goes bankrupt, Google keeps the compute (and whatever they've already been paid) and it's very unlikely they can't find other uses for the compute, so while they'd have better off if OpenAI stayed around, they don't lose too big.

I am talking about Bezos in the exact sense, that as any developed human individual, he needs to feel useful, which is what motivates him, because clearly it is not money that is his motivation. You added the 'virtuous' part, which is why you started on the path of class division. I did not prescribe a moral aspect to his behavior, only the fact that he is moved to do more than just enjoy his leisure, this has no relation to him being virtuous, this has to do with him losing himself without work.