While the probability of training sometime in Switzerland to have particular skills is likely equal to those in other developed countries, there are far fewer people in Switzerland, so it's not hard to believe that they would exhaust their supply of skilled workers in certain areas. That's not a knock of Swiss efficiency for training workers but rather an acknowledgement of a relatively small Swiss population.

There are those that might believe that a small country can train all the workers it needs in all needed areas, but this is a pipe dream. It would require the Swiss to know exactly how much of which workers are needed and to have the unusual capability and efficiency to have all workers in their training pipelines pan out. Even then, with fanciful planning and efficiency, it's not clear that there are enough Swiss people to fill all needed positions.

The dollar numbers are certainly much larger now. However, the PE ratios and the PEG ratios are nowhere near dot-com bubble levels. It could be argued that all the current AI sales will pop all of a sudden, but that's totally different from 25 years ago when the sales were never there in the first place. Only a few companies like Tesla and Palantir have dot-com level PE ratios, and those valuations are indeed crazy.

There is intense competition in research, whether it's as a PhD candidate or afterwards in a research lab. Everyone is looking out for themselves, trying to figure out how they can grab as much credit for themselves as possible. Sabotage is rare, but stealing ideas (or rather hearing something legally and then running with that idea independently) is very common. In teams, each researcher is primarily concerned with how they can get recognized as an individual for promotions and bonuses and how they can pad their own resume. If anything, things get much more competitive after graduation.

The problem in Japan is that they restrict immigrant workers even more than the US. Just like most Americans, most Japanese wouldn't want to pick tomatoes (or any other farm product) because the wages are far too low for the difficulty of the work. Even unemployed Americans and Japanese would refuse to pick tomatoes for such a low wage accompanied by literally back-breaking work. That's why Trump's immigration crackdown is affecting American fruit and vegetable farmers so severely.

The only ways to combat this problem are (1) for farmers to pay more to pickers and for consumers to accept dramatically higher prices or (2) to use robots.

If Rubio thinks that the change to Calibri was wasteful, isn't making yet another change also wasteful? He certainly can't be referring to the utility of the font because that would be an issue of functionality and not waste.

Because that increases sales, like what happened at Domino's. Of course, even Domino's delivery wasn't really free but just hidden in the nominal cost of the pizza.

In a normal company, research is considered to be a cost center. It's always cut before engineering, and engineering concerns get priority.

This is the truth. Every party believes in limiting the parts of government that they don't like while expanding the parts that they do like.

Based solely on material and operational costs, most drugs should be much cheaper than they are. The big difference is the profit motive in the absence of a truly free market. If there were sufficient suppliers who were free to compete by lowering prices, then prices might be reasonable or affordable. However, often suppliers with either government connections or who can erect other market barriers can prevent competition. This is the paradox of competition, that competition often leads to actions to inhibit competition.

Taxes are simply a form of economy shaping using redistribution of money. In this case, the tariffs took money from companies and will give them to farmers. Of course, the companies eventually pass along the tariff costs, so in essence Trump took money from consumers to give to farmers.

This sounds bad, but not compared to Trump gifting Argentina $20 billion so that Argentina could displace US soybean going to China. All this just to help prop up a fellow right-wing populist.

This is the real question, how long the useful life of the hardware is. Whether the companies or Burry is right is mainly determined by the actual lifetime of the hardware. Do companies keep these expensive GPUs longer than 3 years? If so, then a depreciation schedule of more than 3 years is the right thing. Is Burry suggesting that GPUs are being scrapped after about 3 years? Or is he just complaining that the depreciation schedule changed and that the change alone points to bad accounting? I'm guessing that the companies are keeping their GPUs longer than 3 years. Burry needs to generate negative PR in the hopes that his gamble on NVDA falling pays off.

Also, is this really a social media thing? Isn't this more of a gullible people with no financial self-control thing? Wouldn't these types of people get suckered by any form of advertising?

It's a bad, fuzzy, over-generalized question. My answer would be both yes and no. Is a college degree in art history economically worthwhile? No. Is a college degree in nursing economically worthwhile? Yes. Is a college degree averaged over all fields for all people in all situations worthwhile? That's a worthless question.

Different conferences do it differently. I'm in computer architecture, and for conferences in that field, the PC members are the primary reviewers because the assumption is that PC members are the top experts in the field. Anyone they ask to do a review is a secondary reviewer. Ostensibly the reason for finding a secondary reviewer is that you know someone is an expert that would be better than you for that specific paper. However, most of the time, secondary reviewers are chosen because the primary reviewer is lazy. But again, other conferences may do things differently.

There is a lot of truth in what you said. However, reviewers (well at least primary reviewers) get to be listed as program committee members. And PC members generally get more consideration as future PC and general chairs. As a PC chair, I would always pass along info to the next PC chairs about which reviewers were slackers in terms of writing short or useless reviews, failing to submit reviews on time, using an inordinately high number of secondary reviewers, or scoring papers significantly differently than other reviewers for the same paper. These slackers (sometimes) acquire a reputation as bad reviewers, although conferences still want recognizable names on the PC.