They are understaffing on purpose not only despite the requirements, but because of their desire to not meet them.

This kind of thing can lead to insolvency crises which can affect you.

"If Beijing wanted, they could just send the PLA to occupy Siberia, and Putin couldn't do a thing about it"

China is not stupid enough to tip their hand. They will continue preying on Russia by doing sleazy business with them (like selling them the tires that got their advance stuck in the mud) as long as they can first.

No, it's how you get mens rea for the felony murder rule. You didn't carry the gun with the intent to kill, only to intimidate, but you still had a guilty mind, and if you then used the gun to kill someone in the heat of the moment, there's your mens rea.

And remember that actual cause does not mean literally pulling the trigger. At least in the U.S., the courts apply a "but for" test. If the event would not have happened without the previous event, then the previous event is considered the actual, not proximate cause. The police would not have shot the other person but for the perpetrator pointing a gun at someone (and possibly shooting at the police).

IMO, that's not meaningfully different than involuntary manslaughter convictions for allowing unsafe working conditions at a construction site or leaving your loaded gun out where a child can take it, both of which have happened.

The network hardware usually lasts longer than the servers unless you get unlucky. For example if you bought a Cisco Catalyst 5000 then you only had max 5 years before you probably got rid of it due to y2k issues. (The switches WOULD keep working after y2k, but logging of dates wouldn't work correctly.)

Yeah, that's how it works.

Sure. But is it wrong to refuse to do business with a regressive country? Should a nation be forced to do business with a nation whose goals run counter to their ideals?

1) the US promised to protect Ukraine if they gave up nukes
2) Russia still has nukes

Well I'm not an expert on this, but search results say "Monero, Ravencoin, Vertcoin, and Grin" are all still good to mine with CPU or GPU. Also there's no reason they couldn't introduce another coin or ten.

True, but only momentarily. At the end of the first depreciation cycle, assuming purchasing of hardware is not accelerating, you're depreciating 5x as much hardware over 5x the time, and your momentary bubble in the stock price is gone.

And even if hardware purchasing is growing right now, eventually, that will flatten out, and the above will be true.

The only real question should be whether the depreciation rate is reasonable. If you're still getting substantial use out of the hardware after five years, then depreciating it over 3 years is questionable.

Also, the more slowly you depreciate it, the less you save on taxes each year. Faster depreciation is beneficial if you think the tax rate will go down and you will lose the benefit of that depreciation. Slower depreciation is beneficial if you think the tax rate will go up and you will benefit more from depreciating it later. So this may also mean that these companies are expecting corporate income taxes to go up. Make of that what you will.

My concern is that the companies that bought them to run LLMs will become miners themselves to try to recoup some of the costs.

RWNJ is Slashdot's Tucker Carlson. Educated, erudite, pretending not to know things in order to justify the worst possible conclusions. I wonder if he wears a stupid bow tie.

Yeah, you've nailed this. This part of TFS made me laugh:

"This is so cool to me to have the opportunity to be at the forefront of this," one 18-year-old told the New York Times.

LLMs aren't new any more, given how fast the computing industry moves in general, though they are still the hot thing. This kid is nowhere near the forefront in any way. This is just the latest development in a field that's as old as computing.

It's still relevant. In particular it's how you get around restrictions.

If they did that it would increase emissions a lot. They also have already tried to do that but courts ruled that a) California could still have its own emissions standards because California invented emissions standards as far as the US is concerned and b) other states which previously chose to follow California's emissions standards before the US had them can continue to follow California's.

Of course there's no guarantee that the conservative-owned SCOTUS won't change that again.

The standards for operation of commercial trucks, busses etc. are already set by the federal government. States implement them but are not in charge of them, except for filling in the blanks left by incompetent and inadequate federal law as usual. Maybe you should educate yourself about the status quo before agitating for changes to it.

Also Honda, and GM was also well invested at one point, but they seem to have given up on it.

Every battery company of note has proprietary electrolyte. The differences between one battery chemistry and another can be significant.

Most of them are using Chinese batteries.

It's not simple to figure out what you're talking about, a search doesn't return anything obvious through the flurry of marketing content.

It applies to every CAN standard? There's like five of them.

Since after the 1990s, you mean? While there were a few CAN vehicles in the 1990s, it didn't really become popular until the 2000s because the interface chips were still relatively expensive.