Charging time is not just an engineering task. It's a future research challenge. There is no practical way to charge an EV in 5 minutes currently. Until this is practical, no amount of engineering will fix the problem. So, we're stuck in the current paradigm until future research solves the charging time problem.

No, it's the exact opposite. The problem is when we think about the future. In the current situation, a relatively small percentage of car owners have EVs that charge either in their garage/driveway or at work. Charging for these owners seems to work because currently higher priced EVs are purchased by higher income people, who generally have garages/driveways and/or free or low-cost charging at work. In order to transition to a situation where most cars are EVs requires the EV-version of gas stations to support the many people with no garages or driveways. And EV charging stations will only be practical if charging is as fast as a gasoline fuel-up, because a slower charge requires an impractical number of chargers or an impractical waiting time (and associated parking spots), especially since fueling stations necessarily need to be significantly overprovisioned because the variance of car arrival times and destinations is generally high. Oh, and BTW, charging at work only works because only a very small percentage of cars at a particular company need charging. At my company, that very small percentage (probably 1-2% or less) is already overwhelming the set of charging stations and causing arguments. Again, the problem is that cars need hours to charge. A five-minute charge largely addresses the charge-at-work problem.

Much of the energy for AI is for training. However, that extrapolation is based on the current wild west of AI. Most of these companies and organizations doing AI training will stop after either realizing that their models are either less than functional or are non-competitive in the marketplace. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of exploration for the fields that might benefit from AI. Those fields will be pruned over time. The combination of pruning both companies and fields will dramatically limit total power consumption.

iRobot is a company that currently loses money. For the last 12 months, on revenue of $890m, it lost $264m. Its gross margins are just 22%. No amount of Apple fairy dust will make iRobot fit into the Apple ideals for profit margins.

Apple's failures in the self-driving car endeavor might have been partially Apple's fault. However, there are currently zero successful companies in this market, and none expected in the next few years. That's an indication that the main problem was that the technology for the market is not sufficiently mature and furthermore that it likely won't be for quite a while.

Of all companies, Apple should understand how technology maturity is the difference between the Newton and the iPhone. Apple's problem is that the technology is not ready for home robots, self-driving cars, or wearable headsets, at least not in a way that will produce iPhone-like profits.

Aside from the geopolitical ramifications, building fabs outside of Taiwan hurts TSMC's profit margins. Wafer production may happen in fabs outside of Taiwan, but much of the supply chain and post-wafer processing won't be built up around those fabs for a long time, maybe never. And most of the board manufacturing and assembly is still in Asia, so transport costs will increase. And that doesn't even consider the significantly higher labor costs in the West. TSMC is taking a short-term financial incentive from foreign governments and trying to ignore the higher operational costs in the hopes of placating the governments of their largest customers.

Earthquakes don't matter that much. This is a once in 25 year earthquake, and it will be just a blip in chip production. The buildings on the east coast of Taiwan were old countryside buildings. The TSMC fabs were built with earthquakes in mind, and earthquakes are already factored into fabs operational procedures. The one thing that matters is the threat of a Chinese military invasion. A complete destruction of most TSMC fabs would result in Apple, Nvidia, and AMD coming close to disappearing overnight and would trigger a global recession.

Well, the short quote from the article was "It will be the Turner content. It will not have sports. It'll be entertainment-centered." So, it will include non-over-the-air channels, and it will not include sports. Of course, that's sort of contradictory. If Turner content includes TNT and TBS, then it will either include NBA games or those programs will be blacked out. It it did include sports, then I would consider canceling Sling TV and switching to AT&T.

This is technically true, but not really representative of the actual requirement. From the Stanford website: "For the application process, we require test scores from either the ACT with Writing or the SAT with Essay. If you take the ACT, the writing section is required. If you take the SAT, the essay section is required. Test scores without writing/essay will not complete the testing requirement for the application."