Rather than guillotining anyone, the solution ought to be regulating the growth-rate of data centers so that they don't eat the economy. There's no reason to allow them to grow "as fast as possible" when it's not even clear how useful they'll be long-term. Unregulated capitalism leads to violent boom/bust cycles which cause economic pain.

Every computer manufacturer would love to have margins like Apples', and would raise their prices in a heartbeat to get them, if they could. You can call that corporate greed if you want, but it's also standard capitalism.

The more pertinent question to ask is: why is Apple able to command a premium, without losing sales, while other computer manufacturers cannot do the same?

The standard Slashdot answer will be "because Mac purchasers are idiots", but I don't think that is the reason. I think it's because Apple is able to sufficiently differentiate its products from those of its competition, such that customers don't make their purchasing decisions based on a dollars-per-megabyte analysis. If Macs were sold with Windows and featured a consumer-gaming video card (like most every other PC in the world), it would be different, but Apple is the only (legal) source for a MacOS-running computer, and its one of the few providers of a unified-memory architecture for local AI execution. Until it gets some direct competitors, that gives it the ability to name its price.

Differently than common belief, the EV market in Europe is dominated by domestic companies like Volkswagen, Stellantis and Renault, with Tesla and Hyundai/Kia thrown in. Chinese manufactures recently reached a new high with 4.5 percent EV market share. And EV itself is about 25% of total market share. There is not much experience with Chinese EVs so far.

well once they crossed 2 billion the signed integer representation made losses into profits

Peak capitalism should at least succeed commercially. This looks more like a bad idea that will sell maybe a dozen units and then be forgotten. So it remains faithful to the spirit of Commodore's business model at least :)

they don't have to make a profit on the investment. The investment is defensive. The goal is not to be outside the moat.

instead of explaining to my boss why he caught me spinning on my chair and stacking office supplies into Jenga towers as "I'm waiting for the compiler to finish" I can now tell him I'm waiting for claude to get back to me.

I was looking forward to tokenising the Swiss citizen. There would be fewer of them than bitcoins and not growing in populations, so by the same logic bitcoinETF use they would appreciate. And they are even backed by gold. Dang.. I'd have made a fortune.

If the problem was being genetically dead, then why do we have demand for sperm and egg donations? Both are a warrant for at least one of the parents not to have the genes procreated. Same with adoptions. Apparently, feeling to be a parent is not directly linked with actual genetics. And so I doubt any claim that childless people are inherently unhappy because their genes are not carried on.

I think you're right as far adults go -- adults are having fewer children because children are unaffordable.

Teens, OTOH, were almost never making a conscious decision to try to conceive children anyway -- if they got pregnant, that was an unintended side effect of having recreational sex. So if the teenage fertility rate is falling, the most likely explanation is that teens are either having less sex, or they are using contraception more effectively (or both). It's quite plausible that teens are simply spending less time in each others' physical proximity, and therefore having sex with each other less often.

It was not "coal in your face".

Trump ordered the immediate surrender of Iran as well. What Trump commands and what Trump is competent to actually make happen are two vastly different things.

I mean, we could, but when the total expenses for building and running a solar farm are less than just the ongoing cost of buying more coal for an existing coal plant (never mind the maintenance or environmental remediation costs), that's almost literally lighting money on fire. It takes a pretty dedicated idealogue to hold out against the capitalist temptation of making more money solely to show the libs who's boss, and anyone who does so is likely to find themselves replaced by someone else who can "better maximize shareholder value". Hence the shift; even Trump can't stop an idea whose time has come.

Read your .sig

Maybe I don't read the Zeitgeist as well as I should, but AFAICT anything AI-related is seen as extremely uncool these days (at least, outside of certain tech-topian circles). So if Visa thinks "Adopting AI means people will think we're cool", I suspect they are in for a surprise.