Yet another example of how the cry of "states' rights" is hypocritical and selectively applied. Somehow, when the party of "state's rights" controls federal power, states' rights completely disappear. In this case, the constitution and law are completely clear, but the party in power still pushes the counter-constitutional idea because they know that they control the Supreme Court, which apparently has the right to interpret the constitution to be exactly the opposite of what the words say. I guess the Supreme Court also has the right to reinterpret the meaning of "strict constructionism."

Unfortunately, this destruction of the rule of law is exactly why places like China, and more and more so the US, are dangerous places to live.

Some years ago, my boss, who had a PhD in EE from Stanford, told me that he didn't have a high opinion of undergrad CS students at Stanford. The grad students were top notch, but he thought less of the undergrads. In a way, it makes sense. The undergrads at Stanford are smart, but they earned their way there based on high school work. The grad students competed at the university level.

I suppose many companies are thinking that other companies will hire these juniors and that the best of the juniors will be filtered out through those experiences. Sort of like how major league baseball teams think of the farm teams. These companies likely realize that long-term employment, even at the most sought after companies, is becoming more and more rare, so many of the juniors trained at a company will mature and then join a competitor.

But "AI" isn't the goal. That's partly because everyone has a different definition of AI but mostly because what consumers and companies care about is use cases and not some vague notion of AI. Consumers want uses cases that help their lives, and companies want profits. AI skeptics point to the apparent lack of accuracy and use cases for chatbots and use that as a proxy for AI failure. However, AI use cases that have already directly impacted people and that have led to corporate profits have already appeared over the last decade preceding ChatGPT, and that's the main reason that companies are willing to spend seemingly insane amounts of money on AI research. These companies also look back at hi-tech history and don't want to view AI as the next online retail story, where early failures were common and Amazon came to dominate the huge market through a lot of perseverance when it didn't seem wise to continue throwing money at something consumers weren't clamoring for and that didn't generate immediate profits.

It's not a matter of markets but unilateral moves by the Chinese. The reason is that China's economy is heavily dependent on exports, so they are motivated to find replacement buyers. The Chinese should and actually want to increase domestic consumption, but that's easier said than done. So, the immediate solution is to dump Chinese goods on the rest of the world.

Chinese companies are motivated by a desire for increased corporate performance but also by government pressure. The Chinese government is pushing exports by actively manipulating exchange rates to depreciate the Chinese currency. This is why in the last half year, the Chinese RMB has appreciated slightly against the USD but dropped almost 10% versus the Euro as the Chinese pivoted to dumping goods on Europe instead of the US.

This is a good question to ask India. India has sufficient population, intelligence, and resources. It lacks the needed governmental and economic structure.

There are about 13.6 million shares floated for this company. The highest trading volume in the last year was about 2000 shares, but most days see less than 100 shares traded. This stock has essentially no real-time market for shares. As such, the price of its last trade should not be taken as a notion of its value or even its capitalization. It's more like a house that is sold once every few decades and find a crazy person who pays an inflated price. That inflated price does not mean that the house is really worth that amount, i.e., that it could be sold again for around that price.

You left out the primary motivation. An IPO is a way for the founders to get rich. Since they make the decision to IPO, the desire for the founders to get rich is the single-most important reason to IPO.

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.