Bix Beiderbeckes did you condemn to death with Prohibition
Exactly none, alcoholism killed him, not prohibition. His alcoholism drove him to make dangerous choices and take his chances on even more risky contraband. He could have and presumably would have stopped drinking but for his addiction.
Maybe if prohibition had started sooner, he'd never have become an addict!
Cannabis is still illegal at the federal level and still a violation of all kinds of corporate drug use policies. There is a huge portion of the population that is very much still 'prohibited' in terms of facing serious consequences for using, even in states / locales where it is nominally legal current.
I don't think the we good data on the impact of legalization yet, because it not really legal..It exists in a grey-area. There is probably fairly heavy overlap with the portions of the population that feel free to use it in those localities now with the population that was already using.
Of course the forbidden fruit effect is real. There is no doubt that some kids out there think "boy everyone is so uptight about cigarettes, the must be amazing I am going do whatever I gotta to get hold of some" but that is a lot fewer than number who would try lighting up if it was as easy as pumping a fiver into a vending machines because all their friends are.
Policy choices are a numbers game, what keep most people from harmful additions, its not about being 100% effective.
It might not stop the addicts but it is also fallacious to suggest banning substances and activities has no positive impacts.
Prohibition is looked at as failure but
alcohol consumption essentially never returned to where it was on a per-capita basis. How many future addicts did that prevent?
Secondary impacts like domestic violence decline by something like 50% of the rate it had been.
Were the negative effects, yes those are well known and well documented. Prohibition did make a lot of lives better, and it did accomplish a lot of what proponents hoped that it would.
OTOH I wouldn't want the government within 100ft of running a supermarket or construction company (pretty much not beyond enforcing safety regulations) so they're better left to the market.
I'd not want the government within 100ft of anything to do with my health and medical decisions....
*shudder*
Like binning with chips in a more familiar term for nerds.
Ok, you got me on that one...
What does "binning with chips" mean or refer to...?
Never heard that phrase uttered before in my life...
Yeah Al Gore promised us a hockey stick shaped curve dam it!
This nVidia is absolutely all in AI and while I think it is a 'bubble' they will also be the last to be exposed to the pop.
Look at the VC investments and stock prices of the companies delivering AI applications, they are all around that magic 200X earnings number that usually signifies the point beyond which there is not realistic positive return for new investors, unless they happen to get really really lucky and pick the big winner in the specific vertical its kinda like Highlander at this stage, there can be only one.
Think about it like pouring money in IBM because you believed in an OS/2 future in 1988 at that point vs buy MSFT shares; but both were trading at 200X earnings. With MSFT you'd still have made out all right probably, (could not find their actual PE in 88 quickly). My point is there is probably one coding assist, one photo enhancer application, etc to rule them all and everything else will be also-rans in a given vertical. The rest will fold, get acquired cheaply if they have any unique IP, or muddle along without much growth. Unless you picked the big winner you'll never get out what you put in.
On the other hand after each gold rush in a given space peters out, the AI exuberance and capital flows will be pushed into some other vertical in succession. The need for generic-ish hardware good for running ML models will persist. nVidia can expect to keep shoveling chips out the door until either - 1) the market matures and the AI boom full ends, or 2) they hit scaling problems that prevent them from really producing 'better' SI from a performance vs power vs foot print perspective and can't compete with their own previous generation products availible because of the previous vertical app market decline.
The "cloud" is going to be a drag on them too. In the 2000 internet bubble, there was a stigma attached to the used anything, so hardware from failed start ups ended up discounted and sold into secondary markets cheaply. On the hand buying so many units of compute from AWS, well that is a pure commodity and AWS can just leave their compute plant installed and rent it to the next client. Amazon does not need to replace or upgrade it, unless the cost of operation is improved enough to justify the cap-ex. To that end we can expect some flattening of Nvidia sales before they big drop. So you if you watch the quarterly reports, you'll know exactly when to get out. (This is my theory anyway)
The other thing I think is a big driver though is the range and abundance of entertainment we have available to us nowadays. Go back a hundred years and what the hell else were you going to do with your time besides have a family? I think about how I fill my time relative to my friends with kids and a ton of it is shit I wouldn't have been able to do 100 years ago and I'm not really sure what would take the place of that stuff. Drinking?
Interesting take on this...I'd not thought of that either.
That's true...you have guys (predominately) playing video games on a level never seen in the past....you have both sexes spending a ton of time on various social media sites consuming and producing content....and the plethora of other things people can do today readily....
LOL...in my day, there was more drinking..apparently kids today are eschewing alcohol....which in itself might be contributing to less male-female interaction a fucking....
They didn't call booze "conversation lubrication" for nothing you know.....
and over history a lot of kids were the results of a 6 pack and no rubber....
That also makes me think the drop in sex and kids might be partly a casualty of the "me too" movement that started off in a good place, but went WAAAY off the rails....
So,, yes...lots of reasons it seems.
Nuclear families....
Why not look for what worked in all the many many years before the start of the decline?
Is it the rise of militant feminism?
Microplastics/hormones in the water/food?
Surely it didn't just quit being pleasurable to people?
Trap full -- please empty.
