And who is staking nvidia's debt? Round and round we go . . .

Also, comparing a single datacenter to population-wide consumption is meaningless.

And the US stood on the backs of Nazis, who stood in the backs of Jews who stood on the backs of English who stood on the backs of Italy who stood on the backs of Arabs who stood on backs of Greeks who stood on backs of Egyptâ¦

caught the attempt. They have at least one sharp clerk on staff.

The constitution only ever means what you and four friends on scotus say it does. Itâ(TM)s only a sacred document to the extent that most of us honor it that way.

cftc *was* the financial regulator with the most integrity. Iâ(TM)m sure many good folks remain, and they are spending their income on trauma therapy.

This is not about this particular ban. It is about empowering individuals and constraining bad behavior of large organizations that have an outsize influence on marketplace accessibility.

Ownership had always been a law defined, state/sovereign enforced concept. And, since both thog and grog first wanted the same rock, disputes have been decided by any means available.

> There's educational value in occasionally being forced to learn a new platform

I came here tonsay the same thing. especially in an educational setting, exposing students to multiple environments should be part of the goal. Not just computing environments, but cultural, social, language and pedagogical environments should be as varied as possible to bring forth flourishing humans. Of course this small-l liberal pipe dream is completely anathema to modern neoliberal hyper capitalism; such education is only for the very rich.

Excellent science fiction, of which Asimov sets the standard, often while spawning ideas and prompting contemplation. Sometimes it just makes you think, like Dick.

ok then why donâ(TM)t we subsidize our industry instead of tarriff?

> While late filtering from natural causes is possible it looks unlikely since natural disasters on that scale just aren't that common.

It is definitely too soon to draw this conclusion, because we have only just entered our first global scale civilization. And we are testing the global humanity carrying capacity.

interestingly, the 2004 law *increased* the limit. but yes it was very explicit.

Even if this doesnâ(TM)t matter to the reach of broadcast, these companies also create/control a lot of streaming content.

The fancy contract word is privity. If this injunction is meant to be based on contract law, it fails in any functioning system of jurisprudence. I suspect it rests in dmca and copyright law, though, which prohibits infringement of protected rights. The question remains what duty or liability ispâ(TM)s have in this situation.

Of course, whether the US judicial branch is behaving rationally consistent with existing law or any concept of democratic authority is open for debate.