I think they should go back to their original pre-CD business plan:

1. Mail out a lifetime supply of free floppy disks to every household in the USA.
2. ???
3. Profit!

It was demonstrated long ago that most all trading markets are chaotic. By definition, you won't see a sign of collapse in sight.

Unlike useful markets, (but similar to 17th century tulips), crypto has no intrinsic value. Therefore, there is no bottom to a potential crash.

Are they smart enough to know to pull those gains out before the tulip market crashes?

I'll know that AI has achieved a major milestone when one of them eventually says:

"Crypto is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Greenhouse gasses, by orders of magnitude.

The gasses leverage the vast energy available from the sun over a span of decades. The server heat is one and done.

Undoubtedly, the greenhouse gasses released from powering these servers will warm the oceans far more than the servers themselves will.

If you want to use AI, fine. But if I don't want to use it, don't force it on me. Don't put it in my OS and make me have to jump through hoops to avoid it. Don't put it in my applications and have it automatically steal all of my original work to use as training data.

A reasonable person would understand that when these companies take these kinds of actions and put the onus on the end user to opt out, that this is highly suggestive of unethical motives. Normalization through market saturation and removal of choice is a core tenet of the enshittification playbook. And if you, as the consumer, don't fight against this, you will quickly find yourself paying money for what used to be free; putting up with planned obsolescence; not being able to buy durable or reliable products; and becoming inured to vendor lock-in, intrusive advertising, and privacy violations.

The question is not whether generative AI technology is "useful," "trustworthy," "ethical," or "valuable." There are valid use cases, and to argue against that is a losing proposition. Rather, the issue is about the behavior and motives of the entities that have commodified them. Conversely, people defending the use of AI because of its utility are missing the point: you do not need to attack those who choose to avoid it (and in doing so, implicitly defend the unethical behavior of the companies that are pushing it on everyone) as the price for being able to benefit from it.

Once again, that is out. White males are in.

At least ones who bother to keep up with current events.

Obviously, you have been living under a rock for the last 9 months.

In my day, the whole world was an "analog bag".

Mainly because my parents were too cheap to buy me the TRS-80 I kept harping about.

100 Big corporation publishes paper claiming to finally achieve quantum supremacy
200 Wait a few days
300 Some random math guy demonstrates how to calculate the same thing faster on a conventional consumer laptop
400 GOTO 100

Aside from the obvious privacy issues, the concern I have is that this product seems to be positioned as a medical device, but lacks any information about how it is measuring what it purports to measure. What studies support the analyses it claims to perform, and how are its methodologies validated?

It's deeply deceptive to sell a product that claims to track health-related data without disclosing how accurate or meaningful it is. Not only is such marketing exploiting the uneducated public and leading them to believe in snake oil, it also creates confusion, sows distrust of legitimate medical devices and therapies, and may actually lead consumers to make incorrect decisions about seeking medical advice. For instance, one can reasonably envision that someone who buys this product could believe that it could justify less frequent colonoscopies. That could be a fatal error.

On the flip side, one reason I'm sticking with my old cars and not considering buying a new one any time soon is because I really like the fact that they lack connectivity of any kind. They also have real control knobs and no touch screens.

Folger's Crystals already did this experiment this back in the 1980s. Then they publicized the results ad nauseam.

No.

This room-temperature ice is simply a plot device that demonstrates the sheer stupidity of human behavior.

If you set up a market, and multiple people who actually had $1e100 put in a bid of that amount for your stupid crypto, then at least for that instant it was worth that much. It may not be worth that much later, but it would be NOW.

FFS, how can you have such a hard time understanding such a basic concept?