From what I remember from the initial report, OceanGate did everything they could to avoid being in any country's jurisdiction so they would not be subject to any country’s rules and regulations. The company was based in Washington state in the United States, but the OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd was registered in the Bahamas. The Titan was not registered in any country as the Bahamas refused to register the submersible without adequate documentation and technical specifications.

Cooled EGR is not an either-or to DEF. You can have both.

That's even more weight, space, and complexity that no-one wants. It's hard enough fitting the EGR cooler for 4,500hp loco in the loading gauge. And the reason they went with EGR in the first place is because they don't want to deal with the logistics of supplying loco fleets with DEF. Using EGR and DEF would completely defeat the purpose.

In the past, companies building datacenters in rural areas for cheap land would build the infrastructure. After all, the companies needed these datacenters to be reliable as the local infrastructure would not be adequate. Also these rural areas could rarely afford the infrastructure changes needed even if they wanted to build them.

And closed loop cooling uses zero water. Oh it uses less water, not zero water. What about power? Does datacenters use closed-loop power? That does not exist?

Truckee, California. That datacenter did not build their own power. They are just buying all of Truckee's power. Screw the locals.

DEF systems on heavy vehicles work, but they're fairly, well, heavy. Among other thing, they use electrical heat to get up to operating temperature. Then there's the issue of needing the fluid. For earthmoving equipment and railway locos, they'd rather not deal with that and have gone with complex EGR systems with liquid cooling instead.

It means these RAM companies are not spending years and billions of capital to build more capacity for what might be a temporary situation. To him that is "refusing". That is like my local cafe "refusing" to stock their entire cooler with the latest popular caffeinated energy drink brand I like. I mean how dare they.

Nice joke for people who remember Rolls Royce cars before they became BMWs, but I always remember it being "sufficient", not "adequate".

You're missing the joke - Rolls Royce cars (before the brand was sold to BMW) never used to quote power output in marketing material, they just put "sufficient" where a figure would usually go.

The cost though... They did it thinking it would be cheap, and it turned out to be the opposite.

I'm not sure this is really true. They sold it to the public as being cheap, but de Gaulle was absolutely adamant that France needed independent nuclear deterrent capability, because he didn't fully trust the USA. A domestic nuclear industry was a prerequisite for that. So they were probably lying about the cost to make it more palatable to the public all along.

The economics for reprocessing only work if you put an arbitrarily high value on plutonium. In the early days, when countries were building up nuclear weapons stockpiles, this sort of made sense. The nuclear weapons organisations bought plutonium from fuel reprocessing for high prices, and the UK was even selling plutonium to the USA. But now there's more plutonium floating around than anyone really needs, so reprocessing isn't cost-effective. But you don't want to completely dismantle the capability in case you need it for a future arms race, or for maintaining your stockpile.

And then they screwed up their environmental goals by promoting diesel cars, again not knowing that they were so bad when the decision was made.

Diesel cars are still better than petrol cars on every metric besides NOx. The focus was on reducing CO, unburnt hydrocarbons, and then CO2. Diesels are better on all those counts. But NOx eventually became a huge problem, particularly with the way VW, BMW, etc. cheated on emissions.

Apple does not manufacture their own CPUs. They contract TSMC to make them. Apple also does not manufacture their own SSDs, cameras, etc. Of all the components, RAM is a commodity component that survives on thin margins relying on high volume for profits.

Building a chip fab would take years if Apple had the site, the personnel, plans, permits, etc. today. Then it takes an experienced foundry like TSMC about a year after construction is complete to start making enough acceptable product in volume. So 3 or 4 years from now, Apple might have Apple RAM for their devices. By that point, if the RAM crisis is over, all the existing companies could sell their RAM for less than it costs Apple to make as Apple has to recoup capital costs. In the end, Apple will lose money. For what?

Almost every time a company makes promises that seem too good to be true, it turns out too good to be true. Sometimes they even get prosecuted for it. Pivoting from AI slop factory to medical imaging, where being correct actually matters, doesn't inspire confidence.

How long do you think it would take to "start a RAM company"? If Apple had the personnel, site, plans, equipment, etc, it would take years for them to build the plant. Then the plant does not make 100% sellable product on day 1. That might take months to a year. So 3 years from now, Apple might, maybe have a few chips they could use.

Um no. They existing companies are being lots of money to make specialized memory for AI. They are meeting demand. They are meeting demand of people who are paying them the most. They are not meeting the demand of us peasants who can't afford to throw money at them.

Building one would take years if Apple had the personnel, the expertise, site, etc. And at the end of the it, Apple built a manufacturing plant that does not fit into their strategies. After all, Apple does not manufacture their own CPUs. They contract TSMC to make them.

The problem with memory is manufacturing them at the lowest costs not developing it. Memory is standardized and considered a commodity due to the huge number of patents surrounding it. The problem right now is the RAM manufacturers are getting lots of money not to make consumer grade RAM like DDR5. They are getting lots of money to make HBM for AI servers. Where would Apple make this RAM? Certainly not at Micron, SK Hynix, or Samsung. TSMC could manufacture if they were not fully booked making AI CPUs, AMD CPUs, Apple CPUs, Intel CPUs, NVidia GPUs, AMD GPUs, etc.

This isn't a small business loan. The number of banks that could lend hundreds of billions is very small.

There are other obstacles. Samsung's RAM business is a part of their chip business. They would have to separate it from their foundry business. It is highly unlikely Samsung would ever agree to that. Samsung and SK Hynix are South Korean companies. I would think the country of South Korea would object to the sale. That leaves Micron which is in the US. That's where Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, etc would all sue to keep Apple from buying a key supplier.

Also RAM was a commodity industry before the current crisis: Cutthroat competition that survives on thinnest margins and highest volume. That is not the business model Apple wants to invest in. That's why they (like every computer manufacturer) have bought their RAM instead of contract manufacturing it like their other chips.