China won't invade Taiwan because even if Taiwan can't win in a direct confederation if they possess or could possess the capability to take out the Three Gorges Dam, it would devastate China due to the flooding. The U.S. has had a lot of chip manufacturing historically and with Intel becoming less prominent, there's room for TSMC to step in. Since the chips get sent to other countries after being made in the U.S. or Taiwan for further packaging I'm not sure to what extent if any tariffs come into play, but the U.S. is generally a good place to put any kind of capital intensive industry. With all of the demand from AI companies for various kinds of silicon, now is a good time to invest in expanding capacity.

I wonder if it's the memory costs that did them in. They tended to make devices for the higher end of the market and putting 16 GB in a phone is going to be incredibly expensive for a company that can't manufacture their own memory chips or drive enough volume to get discounts on purchases or preferred treatment from memory manufacturers.

I'm not an Android user, but the OnePlus 15 that they released last year was a good device that was well regarded. I know a lot of other posters here have had good things to say about them over the years as well. Hopefully they're able to rebound from this and can continue offering great products.

The people who used to work there will work for whatever company purchases their production facilities or other infrastructure. Unless there's any overall decrease in market demand for what this company produced, others cannot magically increase their own production to satisfy it. Instead they can buy the existing manufacturing capacity and hire the labor who knows how to operate it. Some positions may become redundant, but the ones directly tied to making the products won't.

It's also funny how you grumble about thin margins in one breath, but then complain about rich companies with too much money in the next. If you want to have companies that can maintain operations for extended periods without going under than they need to have more assets. Complaining about tech companies with too much money that they cannot spend it using it to buy back stock is equally idiotic. That's literally them spending the money to reward investors. The alternative would be paying out dividends that do the same thing. For someone with so little understanding of how any of this works, you sure have a lot options. Perhaps you should buy some stock in those companies and bring it up during an investor meeting.

Mandate teenagers go outside and interact with their peers. While I'm sure that this idea might at first horrify some of you, there's nothing that says they can't go play D&D together or any number of nerdy things that everyone here did before the internet existed. Social media should have an age restriction at least as great as alcohol and tobacco, if not higher.

There were always people seeking attention, but before social media they would just wind up waiting tables in LA before realizing that fame was out of their grasp. The downside of the internet democratizing this process is that social media platforms don't even require the freaks to at least join a circus first. Potentially having the entire world as an audience was always going to draw out the narcissists and attention seekers.

No one is going to pay for social media either and there are very few examples (the only one I can think of offhand is Something Awful that charged for profile pictures) where any company has been able to monetize in any way other than ads. People are so used to free that even $5 per year seems like an outrageous sum to many even if they use the platform for several hours per day.

That's not so different than meatspace. The biggest difference is that when you're at a bar instead of on Facebook, etc. you can tell the person you're talking too is a drunk crank and not to take it too seriously. People don't seem to be adapted to treating things they read online with an appropriate amount of skepticism when they're divorced from the person saying them. I feel a little bit for the people who get caught up in this as the social media platforms have designed themselves around exploiting their user's dopamine receptors in as many ways as they can figure out. But like anything else that can be mildly addictive, there's still a fair degree of choice to remain there.

If the bar had bots to keep the drunk cranks occupied instead of bothering other people I probably wouldn't complain. Some people just want someone to talk at even when they don't have anything to say.

This at least about relevant companies/people in the tech industry even if it's the equivalent of celebrity drama. The story is here to farm engagement and ad impressions because AI is one of those topics that people have strong opinions on anyway and roping in the CEO/founders who many people have even stronger opinions about ensures maximum engagement.

If their AIs were worth a shit they could get it to do all of the hating for them. If I were a billionaire I wouldn't waste my time with slap fights on social media.

Why shouldn't they sell to whoever is willing to pay them the most? At best a few honest people get some cheap RAM and a bunch of scalpers make a tidy profit selling the RAM they bought to the data centers. At least if the manufacturers are the ones making the additional money they can invest back into production capacity. The same cannot be said when it's the scalpers who are soaking up the excess money being left on the table.

Same as anyone else, hire a lawyer and sue for unlicensed use of your likeness. Of course the AI isn't going to reproduce you exactly. You and thousands of other people get run through a blender and something that might look a bit like you gets spit out. Even if you had the money to sue, you probably wouldn't succeed anymore than you would suing a company that used a sibling's likeness even though it does look a bit like you.

Just fight fire with fire and use the AI to make someone who vaguely resembles Zuck for advertisements about incontinence. Until your problems and issues become his problems and issues he's not going to care.

RAM prices aren't coming down until the AI bubble bursts. It wouldn't matter if there were another dozen companies manufacturing RAM if the global manufacturing capacity were the same. Even if some of those companies were willing to build additional manufacturing capacity, it would take years for it to come online because erecting the facilities and installing the equipment to produce the chips is also constrained.

Fortunately, everyone seems to be waking up to the fact that AI isn't a silver bullet and realizing it won't solve all of their problems or even save them any money. Also, for anyone playing older titles such as some of nearly three decade old games listed in the summary doesn't need a new machine with more RAM. Installing Linux on older hardware that Microsoft doesn't want to support has always been an option.

YotLD is every bit the meme it's always been and even if Valve had a popular Linux gaming machine at a reasonable price, it wouldn’t move the needle in a meaningful way. Desktops are becoming increasingly irrelevant for most people and Android is the dominant mobile OS that a majority of phones around the world use. Eventually most people will run Linux on desktops, but only because they've become irrelevant for anyone but the kind of power users that want a *nix box for professional work.

Why throw good money after bad? Not every project works out and throwing ever more money into the pit hoping it will eventually pay off requires having some other successful project from which that money must come from. Most studios don't have the kind of money to do that for more than a single game or a small team and if they have to start borrowing there's a good chance that everyone will be out of the job when the game flops or underperforms anyway.

A CEO making that kind of money is in charge of a company with thousands or more likely tens of thousands of employees. A CEO earning $5 million only needs to replace 100 workers earning $50,000 to save the same amount of money. It only takes a company of 2,000 for those 100 employees to be the kind of 5% reduction in force headline that's been common for the past several decades.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if in some cases AI is just an excuse to dump the usual amount of corporate deadweight that accumulates over time. Management will never admit that they overhired during COVID and AI provides a convenient excuse that doesn't point the finger at anyone in any kind of legally actionable way.

Are you suggesting the aboriginal tribes would have died off by now were it not for the British dumping prisoners there?

At the end of the day you're not wrong, but you must admit the laws help. Remove the age limit for alcohol and tobacco use and you'd have more teenagers drinking and smoking. A parent can't be there at every single moment of a child's life and having guardrails in place that allow teenagers to start learning how to be adults while making it more difficult for them to do something colossally foolish is reasonable.