or just even more solar and wind, so that even on "bad days" you can produce more, and who cares if you have excedent on "good days".

Fuck me, another person who doesn't know how tariffs work.

Those Alpha Centurions, they're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!

Correct.
For typical enterprise-grade drive, warranty are in the 5 to 10 years range.
So you can expect them to last that many years at minimum.

So if the bubble pops in 18months as was suggested in the post above, those drives will even still be under warranty, and definitely have quite some life left in them.

...by an normally operating company, where there's somebody who will be held accountable for whatever happens with these drives: yes.
(They'll most likely destroy the drives to avoid any hassle regarding confidentiality, then recycle)

BUT, when a company goes bust, and everybody got laid off, nobody will be around to take care that proper procedures are followed and each drive has a drill shatter its plates. There's no employee left that could be held accountable if the drives "end up in the wrong hands".
Instead the company's assets will be acquired by some debt collector (who isn't bound to the same procedures of data handling), and liquidated in any way that would allow the investors to claw some money back.
That's how you end up with proprietary game dev kits on e-bay after some studio goes bankrupt.

At best there will be a proper bankruptcy auction, and the company handling the liquidation might even put some nomial effort in erasing the drives before putting them on sale.
At worst, everything will be sold by the kilograme to some scrapper, who'll find and single out any valuable to put on eBay like the drives. These will be probably sold as-is with their data content left untouched.

The big ones, yes.

But currently there's a whole zoo of newer companies that specialize in building AI datacenters exclusively. Those one will almost definitely go belly up once the bubble bursts.
Of course the big three will try to salvage whatever is trivial to acquire and re-use in the subsequent firesale (buy a whole warehouse including the convenient palettes of easy to reuse hardware abandonned in there). But whatever is too cumbersome to buy will go to the scrappers and end-up on ebay.

Side note:
I don't know, but Microsoft seems to be on spree to enshitify and run into the ground pretty much everything they produce. (see controversies around Windows 11's unwanted features (Copilot, Recall, etc.), Europe's unease with Microsoft's ability to spy and/or cut you off Office 365 (see: ICC), and similar dumpster fires).
I don't promise anything, but there's a slight chance they run out of profitable businesses to subsidise all their failing ones at some point in the comming decades.

Also, from the article:

ROFLMFAOzors.

There has been Linux distros on ARM hardware with vast selection of software available for ages. At no point in the past half decade of using ARM-based hardware Linux have I run into "doesn't work on ARM".
Actually, quite the opposite in my experience: the open source world has been very fast at adopting new arches (e.g. ARM, or more recently RISC-V) or newer extensions: x86_64 was available of Linux distributions almost immediately (among other: thanks to experience accumulated in previous ports to UltraSPARC, MIPS64, etc.) at a time when "Windows XP 64bits" was a very crashy and useless joke, with barely any drivers.

I suppose this person was disappointed that they can't download a bunch of proprietary binaries downloaded off corporate websites? Or rely heavily on some containerized software only provided for x86_64? (e.g.: some flatpak-ed prorietary software)

Or basically just don't know their way around Linux in general? (A quick look at the titles on their channel: Yup, the presenter openly admits being a linux newb and only recently started experimenting with Fedora)

Mostly due merely because Apple used to hog the finest process(*) available at TSMC (e.g. producing their M chips on "3nm" process while AMD uses "5nm" for their flagship), not as much due to some magic design skills.

And BTW, with the current AI bubble, this advantage of Apple is going to evaporate as now the silicon fabs are going to prioritize buyers with even more (investors', not income) money to burn on the latest and bestest processes. Within a year or so, you could expect the "really efficient, especially if you take energy consumption into account" title will go to some custom AI chipsets by Nvidia and co (server CPUs, datacenter GPUs and NPUs, rack's ultra-high bandwidth interconnects, etc.) mass-produced on crazy scale to fill the "promised" continent-spanning datacenters that the big AI companies accounce in their arm's race to outcompete each-other exaflops-wise; and Apple will slide back to "Yet another CPU manufacturer".

---

(*) note: that still partially(**) explains the high price...
(**) note: but Apple still has ginormous margins compared to the cost of parts.

You're right being sarcastic:

Nope, they didn't have 620'000 BTCs (more like 50'000 BTC, mentionned elsewhere in the discussions).

They didn't make actual transaction on the blockchain giving out 620'000 to some random bitcoin account.

They just accidentally wrote +620'000 BTC in the database that manages the exchange (which tracks the internal state of who is selling how much to whom).
So suddenly some user was supposed to be in possession of 620'000 BTCs on the exchange according to the web interface, even if the exchange never saw the number of BTCs it holds according to the blockchain ledger go magically up by that number.

That's merely a big number in some database.

Because this thing is not technically on the blockchain.

The transactions happening on the blockchain are between your own self-managed wallet and the exchange's infrastructure.
(A banking metaphor: Think you getting cash from your pocket and inserting it in the ATM input slot)

The transactions on the exchange are just internal number keeping by the exchange's software stack to keep track of who has how much and oews how much to whom.
(A banking metaphor: when you send money between accounts, e.g., when you use e-banking to pay somebody at the same bank, there is nobody moving actual wads of dollar bills and coins between vault, instead the bank just updates some numbers in their database and now they know you have less and somebody else has more)

Now this is where the banking metaphor breaks: actual real-world banks are extremely regulated and have to pass some high standard to still be licensed as bank, and because of that great effort are put making sure that the database is coherent, that the numbers corresponds to what is metaphorically in their vault.
Nobody would just get magically "+40 billion bucks" on their account due to a mistake.

Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprise if some of the code involved here was vibe coded.
What happened is the exchange did by mistake write "+620'000 BTC" in their database even if they never controlled that much in their actual wallet/there was never that much BTCs according to the blockchain ledger.

(emphasis mine).

So some people decided to be clever and run away as fast as possible with the money (have it transfered out of the exchange).
Except that even if the exchange's database says these users "possess" 620'000 BTCs, the exchange only actually has 50'000 BTCs according to the ledger, so this has very likely set off some warning of dubious or impossibly high sum being requested for withdrawal, leading the exchange to freeze everything before their actual 50'000 being fleeced.

Sir John Kerr didn't wait for Gough Whitlam's government to ask his advice when he dismissed Kerr and his government. Quite the opposite, the minute Whitlam got a hint that the Governor General might fire him his first thought was to get a hold of the Queen to fire Kerr.

The moment a government in a Westminster parliament loses a confidence vote, they become a caretaker government, a very constitutionally bounded creature. More importantly, their ability to advise the Sovereign/Governor General becomes extremely limited; they can't advise the GG to make new appointments, make most orders in council, or pretty much anything beyond keep basic organs of government going.

In a no confidence situation, it becomes the Governor General's job to figure out what to do next, and the government, being a caretaker, no longer can advise on the use of Royal Prerogatives such as dissolution or appointing new ministers (a new government).

A caretaker PM can certainly tell the GG what he thinks, but as happened in British Columbia in 2017, when the Premier of the province, having lost a confidence motion on the Throne Speech, tried to convince the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, the vice-regal representative is under none of the obligations that a premier or PM who enjoys the confidence of Parliament has. In that case, the LG simply rejected the advice, and asked the opposition leader to form a government.

This is why the concept of confidence (and its loss) is far a better moderator of government excesses than the much older notion of impeachment. The latter evolved as Parliament in England gained more authority, but could not directly go after the King, so would often go after the King's ministers and agents through the use of impeachment. But even by the American revolution, impeachment in the Westminster constitutional order had fallen into disuse in preference to confidence. One of the first governments to fall to a loss of confidence was the Ministry of Lord North, after the defeat of the British in the War of Independence.

In general, I don't think someone of Trump's demeanor would ever be able to get away with as much in a Westminster government. Boris Johnson probably pushed the margins as much as any modern Prime Minister in the UK, and in the end he was effectively removed by his own party. It was an even swifter judgment for Liz Truss, who ended up serving the shortest amount of time as PM, beating George Canning, who died in office after 119 days in 1827.

Here in BC we've had multiple Premiers forced to resign. The closest analog to Trump was Bill Vander Zalm, who was accused of a serious conflict of interest over the sale of one his personal properties. He hung on for some time after the allegations became public, and while he ultimately resigned in disgrace, his cabinet was sufficiently worried that he might ignore all pleas to depart that they they hatched a scheme with the Lieutenant-Governor to have the government vote no confidence in itself, which would have forced Vander Zalm to resign, and then the Lieutenant-Governor would ask the designated member of cabinet to form a new government.

In short, in the Westminster system, the Sovereign and his representatives hold certain reserve powers that function as negative powers; almost never used, but the mere fact that they do not accessible by the government of the day creates a ceiling on the constitutional games that can be played. What's more, there are both visible ways to get rid of errant PMs and Premiers (leadership reviews, cabinet revolts, caucus revolts) and much quieter ones (ministers using their access to the King/GG/LG to get around a head of government).

The US put all its eggs in one basket by making a unified singular executive with powers commensurate with a Tudor-era monarch, the Westminster system created a split executive, with an Efficient part that does all the ruling, and a Dignified part that reigns.

The wealthy aren't going to go first, and the sacrifices will be imposed. Oddly enough, the universe doesn't give a fuck how you feel.

He did no such thing, and warned against Brexit, which caused the economic crash.

You do know we can tell when you're lying.

85% of the population lives in urban areas, the average commute time is well under half an hour. Quit making shit up.

I live in southern BC. We haven't had a snowfall here that lasted more than a few hours, and almost the entire winter has been above 0.

People have raised families in all manner of housing arrangements. Don't confuse cultural norms with actual human requirements.