The companies in question should just pass on the fees to their users. Want to use your Chase account with a third-party payment provider? That's a $15 service fee. When Chase starts bleeding customers, they'll rethink their strategy.

>the Nokia feature phone business from Microsoft, which had in turn bought the ailing brand in 2014.

No mention that Microsoft sent executive Stephen Elop to dismantle Nokia as its CEO in 2010. Nor that in 2014 as part of the deal to acquire Nokia's phone business leaving the rest of the company to soldier on, Nokia insisted that Microsoft repossess him.

If it's science, this government is against it.

The problem with immigrants is always getting them to integrate with the resident culture rather than just transplanting their own into the new place.

FWIW, Roman troops used that effect to make ice cream (well, really sherbets) in the Sahara. But that didn't cool down the days.

Additionally, the farther you move from the equator towards the poles, the less surface area there is.

Given that perspective, the hottest possible temperature is when the air molecules are moving at about the speed of light.

Of course, nothing would hang around in that case.

After due consideration, I have decided to never purchase a Belkin product again.

OTOH, I've always avoided purchasing anything that required internet access to work. So perhaps I'm not part of their market. (I believe that the last Belkin product I bought was a cable.)

Actually a small fraction of the extremely rich do invest in or create things that a corporation wouldn't. But you can never tell which ones will do that, and they are often rather crazy in other ways.

I can't strike a good balance sheet on this thing. SpaceX required a wealthy backer to even get started. And probably Tesla speeded the development of electric cars by at least 5 years, more probably a decade. Those are really valuable contributions. They don't justify worshiping crazy ideas. But without the "extremely rich" class, they wouldn't have happened.

You shouldn't believe the hype ... in either direction. The vendors will always claim their product is better than it is, and those who are threatened by it will always deny the competency.

Unless, however, AI development hits a wall, one should expect it to continue to improve.

OTOH, I suspect that training it on the unmoderated internet has gone quite a bit beyond the optimal stage. That was good for basic grammar, and picking up neologisms, but beyond that it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. What is needs is "validated correct information with a relatively low noise level". And it still needs to be prepared to doubt it.

Sorry, this just means you need to get better a modularizing your code...sorry, requests to the AI.
If it can only handle relatively small modules, that's what you ask it for.

FWIW, I expect that if it's true it won't stay true. (OTOH, I still code by hand, and only use the AI for hints as to how to do something in a language I'm not that familiar with.)

But perhaps instead of writing C it will write it's code in whiteface or brainfuck.

College profession courses are always about predicting the future. There's no alternative. I think it's a drastic overstatement of where things are right now, but a professional is expected to last for several decades, and right now coding would be a bad bet.

Also the newer homes are smaller. Even in suburbs the lot size has shrunk markedly, and the houses as well. I *think* the average size of a rural house has increased, but with all the open space around, that's a lots less significant.

But more importantly, this is but one of multiple factors all pushing in the same direction.

That's only part of the answer. Basically society doesn't really support having children. Part of that is housing, part is expense, part is time limitations, part is contraception, part is ...
I think that every simple answer is missing so many pieces that it's more wrong that right.