A lot of factories run on a 10% or less Net Profit. These guys have to raise prices or go under. Apple is going from an obscene profit to a profit that 99% of the world can only dream about.

Apple could easily eat the cost increase, but when pure greed drives every business decision....

Not all financial professionals agree bitcoin belongs in a portfolio. Bitcoin differs from stocks, bonds and real estate because it doesn't generate earnings, interest payments or rental income that investors can use to estimate its value, says Robert Johnson, a finance professor at Creighton University. Instead, its price is largely determined solely by investor demand. "You cannot invest in Bitcoin, you can only speculate," he says.

The best comparison to Bitcoin that I've heard is the game of roulette. No one wins a dollar from a roulette game that wasn't lost by another player, with the house (the miners) taking its cut for runnng the wheel. Bitcoin is just one giant game of roulette. The money passes from one player to another. If you get rich, it's only because other people walk away from the game poorer.

And of course, more roulette games can be started by other casinos at any time, just as anyone can create a new cryptocurrency. Some of those games gain their own audience; other die out for lack of players. The parallel to cryptocurrency is exact.

But at some point, people have to realize that sitting at a roulette table isn't investing - it's gambling. You're hoping that you'll be luckier than the other players, and that more suckers will keep walking up to play. And fundamentally, I think that's part of what's happening to Bitcoin - with so many cryptocurrencies out there, it's finally percolating into the public consciousness that Bitcoin isn't money, and it isn't an investment - it's just gambling, except that it isn't as honest as a roulette table at Vegas. The Bitcoin whales manipulate the market to fleece the suckers, and will keep doing it as long as more suckers show up.

How much of "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth is programming and how much looks a lot like pure math? What percentage of Computer Science grads can even read and understand book one?

We need two degrees. A vocation "programming" degree and college/university degree in "Computer Science."

Nope. But in my experience, in well-designed cities, you rarely need to walk more than about 250 m to 500 m on either end of the trip, and if you're working in a dense urban core, you often get delivered right to your building or very close to it.

Ah, yes. Another "one day people like me will force people like you to live the way we think you should" post.

Keep dreaming!

Personally, I want a self-driving RV. Go to sleep and wake up at the destination.

Yes, the magic house.

Twenty years from now the techno-nomadic lifestyle will be commonplace. Why own a home that stays in one spot when you can own a home that lets you wake up in a different destination whenever you want? Think of the modern RV culture, but multiplied 100-fold.

A Waymo taxi is probably around 4.5m long and can hold 5 people. So 28m worth of Waymo taxis bumper-to-bumper with zero clearance between them can hold 30 people... less than one-quarter of the tram. In reality, you're probably only going to get 15-20 people in the Waymos because of the clearance between them.

Individual vehicles are just about the worst way to move a lot of people efficiently.

And will that tram pick up and deliver each of those 130 people directly at the doors of their homes or workplaces? Because I have yet to see a bus, trolley, or subway car that will do that for 99.99% of its passengers.

Waymo can do exactly that. That is exactly the reason why Waymo and Uber and Lyft (and taxis!) exist. Mass transit cannot solve the last-mile problem.

In Arizona, the police routinely have to rescue people who drive around roadblocks into flooded arroyos and wind up with their vehicles floating down the wash. It got so bad while I lived there that the city had to start charging people a fee for their rescue to curb the stupidity.

A decade from now, I have no doubt that the authorities will still have to rescue drivers in flooded roadways. I am also certain that Waymo vehicles will have stopped making that mistake years earlier. We can fix autonomous vehicles. We can't fix humans. I'll take the Waymo, thank you.

What is the different problem that they solve?

Here's one: the Waymo will never sexually harass a female passenger. And yes, a lot of women choose Waymo over Uber, Lyft, a taxi, or even public transit for exactly that reason.

It's amusing to see people assuming the "Get off my lawn!" roles of their elders over AI and autonomous vehicles. Not so long ago I recall similar "shout at the sky" attitudes on Slashdot about Uber and Lyft, which have now become the "good guys" because they employ human drivers (who sometimes sexually harass their passengers, of course).

Waymo is giving half a million rides a week right now, and that number should double by the end of 2026. Even if you could somehow shut down Waymo tomorrow, a Chinese company would move right in and take its place, because the technology is not going away.

The case was won on a technicality. The core issue was never really addressed.

Other than MBAs, I can't think anyone with a masters... If you aren't going to make PhD at Standford, Harvard, etc. in the hard sciences, they give you a masters and tell you "nice try, now please move along." People either do a PhD (free because you are teaching or doing research) or start working after their BS. After four years of undergrad, you should have the tools you need. If you don't know something, you should be able to quickly teach yourself. A PhD means you can say you are the world's leading expert in something very narrow, and you were the the first person to find/discover/explain/prove/etc. something new. Very cool!

Someone is anthropomorphizing.

This is a good way to grow. The old "the first hit is free" model. However, in this scenario, the AI companies should give their product away for free and recognize no revenue. They can report active users per month or something similar. Subsiding the sales and then recognizing the revenue feels like fraud.

I have no particular love for Intel or its products, but I do hope this is the beginning of a turnaround for them, for no other reason than their strategic importance to the U.S. domestic IC industry.

On the other hand, I've seen no compelling evidence so far that they've really learned from their previous mistakes. Only time will tell.

Does it really take $1.25 billion in opex to give away $9 billion? WOW!

$1.25 billion get you 5,000 employees making 250k each. At a charity???? (I know. There is also coffee, insurance, rent, lawyers, etc.)

Who on earth is running this place? Oh. Wait...

It's genius. Say the product is too dangerous, and you can't have it. Have the few people who actual touch it sign NDAs.

Sit back watch the news go wild.

Company valuation jumps.