But they have digital confirmation!

You obviously don't understand the actual post being made. The more difficult life is to do things like paying your bills, working multiple jobs, and things of that sort, the more stress people will have, which shortens their lives. On the flip side, those who have more leisure time and carry less stress will live longer.

It needs to go beyond just what they consume, but also, for ALL infrastructure upgrades associated with it. You open a new sports stadium, the stadium owners should be paying for highway and rail construction, plus maintenance for those things going forward. You open a data center, the data center owners will generally not be paying for upgraded transmission lines, transformers, and even the cost of all new generators required.

It's not just about the water bill, who pays for infrastructure upgrades needed to deliver water/power? When the local community is expected to pay the price for infrastructure upgrades imposed by a single business pulling resources, that's a big problem, unless that business wants to make the local community shareholders where the increased utility costs they will pay FOREVER going forward are more than offset by the shares in the business going up in value. You want socialism for the wealthy, then the wealthy should then share their wealth with the community that ultimately ends up paying the price for their businesses.

There is something a bit more fundamental at work here. If any single business requires ANY utility to upgrade its infrastructure to deliver power, water, or other things, then that one business should be required to pay for ALL of those infrastructure upgrade costs. Why should the local community be expected to cover the expenses that are ENTIRELY caused by a single business? Yes, water usage and power draw by themselves are something to be concerned with, but this comes back to the old idea of "socialism for the wealthy and rugged individualism for everyone else" being seen as a major problem. SOCIETY should not be paying businesses to make the owners even more wealthy while contributing very little to the local community. You can be sure that town board members that are the ones who keep approving these things have their members getting paid off while the community ends up paying the price. Suggesting those people should just be voted out is the sort of clueless comment that often comes back, because those running for office tend to be wealthy themselves, or they are retired and have enough money where they don't care what happens to those who still need to work for a living.

AI would do a better job than most CEOs that are out there at this point. Look at Ford, or HP, or just about any other company that grew large on good products that have dropped the ball on innovation and understanding that they lose business by being horribly short sighted.

You don't see the problem that is looking at you and seeing a world where you won't have a job and where most people will end up homeless. When businesses can use AI to replace people all across the company, that means...fewer jobs. The only people who do well at that point are those at the top of the economic ladder. It's not just the low level jobs that will always be replaced by automation, it's the low, middle, and even high end jobs that may go away. There won't be a need to "learn AI" when the wealthy can just pay for AI tools that will eliminate the need to code in the first place. When everyone is unemployed, only the wealthy who don't need to work ANYWAY will do well, and they don't care about those who are unemployed. Government is owned by the wealthy as well, so government won't care about the 80% of the population who are unemployed. When have you heard Republicans(or most Democrats) care about those out of work or down on their luck?

You misunderstand what MANAGEMENT is doing when it comes to jobs. AI as a job aid, AI doesn't or wouldn't bother most people, it is when AI is being used to replace people entirely, and the quality of what AI comes up with is poor where people are against AI.

Will....maybe, not necessarily better, and those robots, where does the power come from when the AI data centers are pulling all available power from the grid?

One U.S. ISP that technically blocks inbound TCP over IPv6 is T-Mobile Home Internet (fixed wireless). The gateway appliance included with the plan offers no way to forward a port to the subscriber's computer. (Source) I've read that most major U.S. ISPs threaten to disconnect a home subscriber for running a publicly accessible server. (Source)

One large legacy network in the U.S. is Frontier fiber, which is still IPv4-only in 2026.

The wealthy with all that money from the stock market are definitely making a lot of money, which most of us don't have the disposable income to have dropped $100,000 into NVIDIA four years ago to have really profited from it. Wall Street only cares about corporate profits, and those corporations will still make a lot of money from senseless wars, even if we go into a full scale depression. That's the nature of the modern economic climate, those with a lot of money get rich while the rest of humanity starves.

Let's face it, while AI has potential, these big businesses are using it to cut staffing, while at the same time, AI has been shown to NOT be ready to replace humans for most jobs. So, the promise of AI benefits WHO exactly, workers, those who want to be workers, or just the very wealthy who have hoarded their wealth while paying a lower percentage of their income than those who make only $50,000 per year? Yea, it may improve productivity, and then, the workers don't get raises while being more productive.

THAT is the reality, not that AI is making things better for normal people, because again, those who are more productive are not seeing wages increase accordingly. Only the wealthy are seeing a true benefit.

Donald Trump is against renewable energy. He is having the US government PAY to cancel the wind and solar plans of companies where the work was already going on to build things like offshore wind farms. He also made sure to get rid of the EV and hybrid vehicle subsidies that were encouraging the move toward those types of vehicles, probably because of "donations" from Saudi or other people that have a vested interest in the oil industry.

It has been shown that those $7000 rebates that were in place helped sales of hybrid and fully electric vehicles, and obviously, removing those rebates would suddenly kill sales of them since $7000 isn't a small amount of money for MOST people.

You obviously have missed the fact that many people LIKE to stick with a given manufacturer for various reasons, not just in the auto industry. The most obvious reason is user interface, the way you control the product can often be a key reason. It's why Apple has the following it has, and Samsung. In the automotive sector, where are the controls for this or that, and how do they work?

Now, Ford lost me as a customer when they dropped normal passenger cars here in the North American market. I have zero desire for a truck, or a SUV. I'd rather have a normal sedan that has good handling and good fuel economy. So, in 2022 when my Ford Focus died(dual-clutch transmission problems), I made the switch to Hyundai with the Elantra. This car gives me between 45 and 51 miles per gallon highway, and 34-35 miles per gallon local, depending on speed and isn't a hybrid. With the SEL with convenience package, it does very well when it comes to features. Now, the features and HOW the features work are quite a bit better than what you find in Toyota or Honda.

Remember, it's not just if a car has features, it is also critical how well or poorly those features are implemented, and you don't hear about that very often. How well do those collision avoidance system work, and do they feel natural, or do they require a lot of effort to use them? Hyundai and by extension, Kia, have systems that work well together. There is room for improvement, but overall, Hyundai does a better job in most areas, with only the fuel economy from Toyota being better, but Hyundai having better comfort and features you don't see. The N-line vehicles for those who want more horsepower I have not done a serious comparison about, because honestly, when you drive over 400 miles a week with some heavy traffic, I'm not looking to be zipping between cars and risking an accident just to save five minutes. Honestly, the only downside to the Elantra is the 150 horsepower of the non-hybrid compared to the competition, but it has features that beat the competition, so it balances itself out. If you look at the Limited trims that have a heads up display, you generally don't see too many with that as a feature in the competition in the same price range.

Democrats have moved far to the right, just not as far as Republicans have gone. The shift started back during the Clinton administration, try to go for the "big tent" approach, welcome CONSERVATIVES to the party, as long as they aren't too far to the right. To bring those conservatives, Democtats aimed for "the middle", but when the middle shifts to the right because Republicans push further and further to the right, suddenly, most Democrats are now more conservative than progressive.

Liberal is a term that is really flawed in most ways, it means tolerant, accepting of others and other perspectives. it does NOT mean pushing for improvements, it doesn't mean change, it means acceptance. And yep, the Democratic Party is dominated by liberals, they are more accepting of conservatives and even Republicans than they are progressives, who try to push back to the left instead of just allowing Republicans to keep dragging EVERYTHING more and more to the right. Pelosi, Schumer, Harry Reid, they were all liberals, only pushing slightly back as Republicans dragged things further toward an authoritarian way of doing things.