No they won't. Trump will simply move his Gold House to Aspen, CO. Problem solved.

I don't think treason could have been made to apply. It's defined in the Constitution, and the definition is a *LOT* stricter than colloquial use.

Ah, but who is the consumer of those resources. Perhaps Google is selling compute to other companies. That could be quite a profitable approach.

I hate to say I told you so, but..... I told you so! The economics of capital and resource intensive AI services coupled with low demand needs somebody to step up and pay for it. It's not the users, who don't value AI enough to cough up real money and so must be tricked into using it for free. It's no longer the investors, who have put in real money for the last 3 years and are starting to ask for real returns on their investment, not a Ponzi scheme. The last resort to pay for AI are the advertisers. Like advertising in search, advertising in AI will cause the service to degrade and lose its value.

And that's why I use adblockers etc. Because, it's not my job to subsidise the free products with my eyeballs. If it's free, then it's free. If it's free, but you want something in return, then it's a seedy bait-and-switch tactic designed to bypass the normal pricing mechanism. Money is the normal mechanism used for regulating supply and demand.

Tut tut. I am not surprised anyone would say this if they have a very narrow exposure to human beings, and no children. Anyone who has children, or knows somebody who has children, would not be surprised that anyone expected that these things actually would work. In particular, your original impulse is spot on. You really should tut tut and say that these companies are predatory and lying about the capabilities of their products.

Yes, Google is profitable now. Tremendously so. But they're at risk of losing revenue and ceasing to be profitable as people cease using Google search and switch to asking questions of their AIs. So to retain their position as the place people go first for information, they have to stay ahead of the AI race. Well, they could also just sit back and wait to see if their competitors are overwhelmed by the query volume, but that risks losing traffic and then having to win it back. It's much better to keep it. And Google is better-positioned to win this race than its competitors both because of its existing infrastructure and expertise and because it already has the eyeballs.

In addition, you seem to be assuming that doubling serving capacity means doubling cost. Clearly Google is not planning to increase their annual operating expenses by 1000X. As the summary actually says in the third paragraph, Google is also going to have to improve efficiency to achieve the growth rate, with better models and better hardware. This is what the AI chief is challenging the employees to do; he's not challenging them to write bigger OPEX checks, that's his job.

FWIW, Amazon lost money every quarter for nearly a decade. It hasn't been doing that recently.

I know a few. I don't know what it may or may not mean. It may be relevant that the ones I know used a community-based approach, where groups of homeschooling families worked together to create something akin to a school, with different parents teaching different subjects. This meant that while the kids socialization groups were small, they did hang out with and learn with other kids, not just their siblings.

It's more than that. Research into the possibility of a link between vaccination and autism has been done, and no correlation found. This is evidence that there is no connection and it's entirely different from a case where no research has been done. One is evidence of absence, the other is absence of evidence. The GP is equating them, but they're not remotely the same thing.

Show me all of the studies that have evaluated the correlation between FSM action and autism. There has been a lot of research on the possibility of a correlation between vaccination and autism, and no evidence of correlation has been found. There is an enormous difference between "We've looked hard and found no connection" (evidence of a negative) and "We haven't looked at all" (lack of evidence).

In addition, there's no need for the CDC to debunk a claims that are not being made, or non-harmful claims. To pick a less-ludicrous example, there's no significant population claiming that eating grapes causes autism, so there's no need for the CDC to address it. Further, if there were an anti-grape lobby touting a connection with autism, the CDC probably still wouldn't need to address it because some people avoiding grapes doesn't create significant health risks to others.

But there is a significant population claiming -- against strong scientific evidence -- that vaccines cause autism, and that claim is causing them to reject vaccines, which does create significant health risks for others. So, the CDC absolutely does need to address it, since public health is their job.

Your analogy is terrible, in every way.

They're hardware vendors, so it's likely disabled in either the hardware or the firmware.

1) "give me liberty or give me death" was always a minority position.
2) Things that work well when people live in rural areas with slow communication don't necessarily work well when people live in dense clusters (i.e. cities) and conversely.
3) It is always the job of the individual to assign weights to his Bayesian priors. The state may control the costs of your actions, but should not be allowed to control your beliefs.

I hope I've covered what you were asking, but it was a bit unclear.

I used to work for Sling TV, and you basically have that backwards. ESPN is the part of Disney's package that people are willing to pay money for. The shutdown and negotiations every year is just Disney forcing the various providers to pay for and carry their other channels. That's why Disney always holds these negotiations during football season, so if they have to shut someone down their customers actually care. Every year viewership on Disney's other channels (and non-sports channels in general) is lower, and the prices that the content producers require goes up. Scripted television is in serious decline, and Hollywood is using sports fans to prop it up.

As an example, If you don't care about sports you can get Disney+ without ads for about $12 a month. Disney will happily throw in Hulu for that same price if you will watch some ads. You can binge watch the shows that you care about and then switch to another channel. Heck, you can buy entire seasons of their shows ala carte. You can't get ESPN however, without paying at least $45/month, and that's with a package with no non-Disney channels and chuck full of ads. For the record, that's basically what the streaming services are paying Disney as well. When I worked at Sling the entirety of the subscription fees went to the content companies (primarily Disney). There is essentially no profit in cable packages. All of the profit has to be made up somewhere else.

People that aren't sports fans, especially if they are entertainment fans, tend to believe that scripted programming is carrying sports, but it is the other way around. That's why AppleTV, which has spent over $20 billion creating content for their channel has about as many subscribers the amount of people that typically watch a single episode of Thursday Night Football, the worst professional football game of the week. Amazon Prime pays $1 billion a year for that franchise, and it is a bargain compared to creating scripted content. Apple makes great television that almost no one pays for. The other content providers are in the same boat. You'll notice, for example, that Netflix's most expensive package is $25/month, and the revenue per user in the U.S. is around $16. That's ad free. The lowest promotional price you can pay for ESPN is basically twice that, and it always comes with ads. What's more, sports fans tend to actually watch the ads.

Sling is selling day and weekend passes to people because it knows that most of its customers only have their service to watch the game. No one is watching linear television anymore, but the content creators have built their entire business around the idea of having a channel that they fill up with content. Even with Sling's ridiculous prices they can typically watch the games they want to watch for less than maintaining a subscription.

I have spent most of my adult life in the sports world, but I don't watch sports. I personally believe that in the long run sports television is probably going to end up uncoupled from scripted television. I think that is going to be very bad news for people that like scripted television.

I spend all my time grinding and doing actual work, when what I obviously ought to be doing is applying for grants so I can research the blindingly obvious.