It is a supply and demand problem.
Since it requires such a huge amount of capital to ramp up production, manufacturers are loathe to ramp up production too quickly for what might turn out to be a bubble, so meanwhile there is excess demand.
This will eventually correct, and if it does turn out that AI was just a bubble, or even if it turns out to be useful but the rate of growth slows down, there will be an excess of memory and processors and we can enjoy cheap prices for a while.
If you want to help lower prices, invest in chip fabs, or stop using AI.

As long as Ai requires vast data centres and ground based energy sources and humans to maintain them, there's plenty of reasons risk for them. The time to really worry is when AI's are hosted on solar powered orbital platforms with self maintaining capabilities.

All those cars are parking somewhere for a lot of the time. It's a matter of setting up charging points wherever cars park.
  Not every parking space needs to support charging - but even for curb side street parking, if you have a street light nearby it shouldn't be that hard to add a charger to the closest one or two car parks - and considering many of those streetlights would have been installed and wired when lighting was using much more power heavy incandescent lighting, there is likely to be a fair bit of extra capacity that could be used for charging, now lighting is all low power LED.
That's just one option. Another is chargers in supermarket parking lots, etc.

One of the driving factors behind showing power in mAh is that marketing gets to print a more impressive big number on the box.
Although Wh would be preferred, I'd be happy if they even just changed to displaying mWh on the box - and it should be a win-win. they get a bigger more impressive number to display and I get a unit of measure that actually gives the total amount of electrical energy the device can store, instead of trying to guess whether the rating is based on whatever the battery cell voltages are, or the output voltage that could be anything from 5v to 20v, for USB-C.

If it's radioactive enough to be a problem I would imagine it's easily detectable, considering that there are solid state sensors that can detect as little as 1 nSv/h of radiation and are apparently sensitive enough to be sometimes triggered by bananas.
If it's so radioactively inert that it can't be detected, then is it really a problem?

I forgot to mention that although it is possible to set some content rating based restrictions on some sited, there isn't any browser level standard. I think ideally what you would want is a way you could set your browser to be in "PG" mode for example, and then all websites (or content on websites) would be filterable accordingly.

Of course some websites might not choose to apply ratings to their content, or would apply inappropriate ratings to the content, but search engines could quickly down rate mis-rated content so it doesn't turn up in searches.
  It also goes without saying that the content filtering should be completely at the control of the individual user, with parents being responsible for setting appropriate filter levels for their kids, but only having to do it at the browser level, not each individual possible site their kid might visit.

I would love it if there was some kind of mirror site for YouTube that would convert all the long video tutorial type videos into well formatted text with appropriate illustrations extracted from the video where necessary.
scanning the transcript sometimes helps, but it's not in a very easy to read format.

It's especially frustrating when I want to see how to do something or other in say, Unreal Engine, and nearly all resources available are YouTube videos instead of reasonable documentation or written tutorials.
Even playing the video at double speed to scan for the meat of what I want only goes so far to reducing this problem.

Of course it would be far better if there was just good documentation and example, but that's probably wishing for too much.

While it's true that you can't keep kids from seeing content that mabey isn't appropriate, social media companies haven't exactly done themselves any favours by failing to have any kind of rating system for their content.

I think a far better solution would be for content to be rated, with controls in place so rating filters could be applied, similar to how tv has ratings for content, and in some cases has the ability to set a parental lock for some content.

For sites like youtube, which has so much good educational content, as well as a lot of stuff that mabey you don't want your 12 year old kids to see, it would be far better than an outright ban if you could set a filter to only show say, G or PG rated content, and you could be sure your kids weren't going to be exposed to clips of people getting blown up in a war or something.
This might mean that all content would have to be rated "Unrated" until it was reviewed and rated by either a human or sufficiently accurate AI bot, but this should be something that be increasingly possible to do.
For comments, it might be be necessary to disable them, or similarly have them get rated in real time by a bot.

Can someone please create a counter-ai which will make you appear as poor as possible and therefore get cheap AI generated pricing?

Don't worry there will be additional tariffs for any countries that try and refuse toxic American fruit and veg.

Nuclear fusion is already taking over, with it being the cheapest power available. Best of all it's readily accessible with most homes only needing about 20-40 sqm of fusion energy collectors and about 40kwh of storage to capture enough energy to be completely off grid energy independent.
There will of course be some areas this is not fully practical, so grid connecting homes and allowing the power to be shared across longer distances will reduce localized fusion energy power fluctuations.

Depends on which way the strips go.

https://youtu.be/baU4cyQ3A5U?t...

Apparently reality distortion field beats demo effect.

Yes it is - the increasing amount of CO2 concentration in seawater causes it to become more acidic, which dissolves calcium carbonate, the main component of coral, as well as the shells of many crustacean species.
Reefs begin to dissolve when pH gets to 7.8 or lower.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1, and by the end of the century, it is predicted to drop below 7.8, and at that point the rate of reef dissolving will be faster than the rate at which it can be increased by new coral growth, and of course existing old coral that doesn't have living coral on it will just dissolve.

I would imagine that one difficulty of using a blimp for delivery is that wind turbines tend to be sited at locations with great wind domains - which aren't exactly friendly regions for blimp handling, and there's also the problem of balancing ballast while dropping off 80 tons of turbine blade. The biggest blimps currently available have a maximum payload of about 50 tons, though the cancelled CargoLifter CL 160 was supposed to have a 160 ton capacity.
By comparison, the Antonov An-225 Mriya, which was used to transport turbine blades for several installations before it was destroyed at the beginning of the Ukraine / Russia war could carry 250 tons, so it makes sense to build another aircraft like that for these kinds of jobs, though of course it can't do the final leg of delivery.