Induced demand is just flat out wrong. Here's an easy example. If the building I work I were to double the number of bike racks in front of it, would it increase the number of people who bike to work?

The reality is that there would be twice as many empty bike racks in front of the building. Why did they fail to induce demand in this case? People (mostly) do t drive just for the sake of driving. They do so because the trip serves some purpose. If the trip is too costly in terms of time taken then people are less likely to make it. Increased usage of rod capacity is merely a recognition of latent demand for less expensive travel. This follows typical human behavior where lower costs tends to lead to higher consumption.

I don't think communists have ever promoted the idea of induced demand. This seems to have sprung up in urbanism communities that have an absolute disdain for cars. There might be an overlap in these communities, but I've only ever stumbled across it there. The only way to increase the number of people who would bike to work is if the racks are already full and some people who would otherwise bike to work elect not to because they might not be able to find a spot to park their bike. Same exact thing with roads. Some people put off trips they might otherwise make because they don't expect to be able to make them as quickly as they'd like.

I never wanted any of the "smart" shit on my television in the first place. If they disable everything and leave me with a "dumb" display I'll be all the happier for it.

Just tell people it's like having a Flock camera in their living room. For whatever reason the same people who put up with all of the other spying shit seem to hate Flock cameras, so the best way to convince them that this is a problem is to liken it to that.

Do you regularly go to film festivals? The people who regularly do are the sort of people who tend to follow the industry closely and know a lot about upcoming films in much the same way that posters here follow rumors about unreleased tech products. For them the prospect of being one of a few hundred people who get to screen something that no one else has seen before or even heard about is going to be an alluring proposition, in much the same way that plenty of people here would jump at the opportunity to beta test some secret new tech product that's been kept under wraps during development. Maybe it will be a waste of time, but the potential is what draws us in.

Did he mention that one of the most likely causes of cybersecurity issues will be due to AI generated code that some cowboy slapped into a production system. AI might be good enough to replace some code monkey cobbling together bits of JavaScript taken from stack overflow, but it's nowhere near good enough to replace an actual developer and depends heavily on capable developers being able to spot the small flaws in what it does spit out before they cause serious problems.

There are a lot of people who went into the field because it t was hyped up and the starting salaries were good. I remember a friend whose kid wanted to major in CS because he really liked playing Halo. He switched majors after his first semester.

Cook wasn't ever much of a product guy, but the changes that he made to Apple's supply chain management were a large part of what enabled them to capitalize on the success of the iPod and become one of the most valuable companies on the planet. What use is a brilliant idea that you can't execute on?

As hokey as something like that would be, I'd still pay to see it too.

If what you were suggesting were true we'd all be wearing sackcloth and bemoaning the complete lack of sanitation. If the big tech companies stop innovating they'll be replaced by something else that does, just like human civilizations largely managed to advance even though Rome declined and eventually fell.

I have no loyalty to the current tech companies beyond their ability to produce products or services I want. The industry is already full of corpses from past decades that failed to innovate. Given long enough any of the current leaders will only be a footnote in the larger history themselves.

All of the people who were replaced by AI technically have a zero day work week now. AI has clearly exceeded expectations! Quick, pour even more money into the pit and don't ask whether or not it's actually effective.

I'm reminded of an old saying: "The market can afford to remain irrational longer than you can afford to remain solvent."

He's not even correct. The U.S. is more urbanized than it's ever been and the old farts were more likely to grow up in new suburbs or small towns that sprung up all over during the post-war baby boom. He's been watching some idiot urbanism channel on YouTube and regurgitating the taking points with as much thought as they were formed with. If prior generations of kids had the internet they would have spend more time socializing that way. More kids were outside in the past because their parents kicked them out of the house and told them to go play. If parents today would do the same there would be no need for these sorts of laws, because the kids would go outside and play if they didn't have Xbox, Facebook, or whatever else they're spending their time on these days.

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.