My reply was a counterexample to support my assertion:

Your reply to that was:

You come of quite arrogant saying "false" when you don't even understand what is being discussed. You made some assumptions then ran with it. Then doubled down apparently.

I'll make my argument clearer for you:

Next time you buy something MADE IN CHINA. Guess what?
IT DOESN'T FUCKING FOLLOW US LABOR LAWS.

Christ. The smartest people can be absolute dumb shits sometimes.

you will not be missed

Federal Minimum wage? Clear Air Act?

Are you pulling my leg?

citation needed

2059 will be a watershed year for Linux.

(sorry. I forgot to close the <quote> tag)

There are more houses per household now than there were 50 years ago. The tightest squeeze in recent history was 1980. The biggest glut was mid-1990's.
Artificial interest rate suppression by the Federal Reserve Bank has driven housing prices up into the stratosphere since about 2001. With effective interest rates that were negative for over two decades.

And now we have average home price at an all-time historic high when compared to median household income. Our salaries did not keep up with the real estate market. Any house you build will float up to the market rate, no matter how cheaply and small you build it. So there is no point in building an affordable home because nobody can afford the mortgage. And people aren't going to move out of their starter home to upgrade in enough numbers to free up those starter homes, besides people will want to sell them at the market rate!

Plenty of supply exists. And many of those homes are in the hands of speculators. Without some serious reform, you can keep shoveling homes into the market and you won't see people moving into them. You'll just have ghost complexes that sit around waiting for the owner to write them off as a loss. With Democrats they'll somehow get taxpayers to pay for the construction boondoggle. With Republicans they'll make sure that the rich at least get tax breaks and write offs. Neither party actually has a plan to put young families into homes.

meth heads combined with government overreach made it a huge pain to buy real Sudafed in most states.

But it has to be effective regulation. Too bad the criminals on Capital Hill are no better than the criminals abroad.

Folks, we're on our own. The government isn't going to step in and protect us. The banks certainly aren't going to do it.

If your loved one is into crypto, and excited about a new investment: Stop them! Call their bank and report the suspicious activity, some banks still do listen even if they do so far too late. Steal their phone and change their passwords if you have to. Although getting locked out of your accounts at the wrong moment can also be catastrophic. (f'ing technology these days!)

Too bad the best content was filmed in 1080p 24fps (Panavision HD-900F, etc) or below. Or on film which has comparable resolution to 4K and below, although film scanning is typically done at 8K so that it can be edited more easily. (disclaimer: I'm not actually a big cinema tech guy, just looked up a few things. I'm layperson and a consumer of films)

I'd rather use that level of bandwidth with DisplayPort for Multi Stream Transport. Instead of one 16K@60 or 12K@120 I'd rather have a few 4K displays attached to the same chain. Of course that's more of a desktop use case than a home theater use case. But honestly, 90% of my screen time is on a PC or a smartphone and not in my living room.

Automotive silicon is not really the growth industry that tech investors look for. A quick look at Intel's competitor: NV's quarterly results shows that their data center business is about 90% of their revenue, gaming about 5-6% and automotive is 1.5%.

It's a tiny part of the business for most of these silicon vendors (it was the case for Freescale and TI too). But the margins on automotive are great, and the long term commitments are great too. Basically you get paid every year to warehouse spare components by contract. When the contract ends, the buyer can option to buy out the inventory at a already negotiated price. Or the silicon vendor keeps the components and sells them for pennies on the dollar (Mouser, Digikey, Jameco, etc pick these industrial parts up). Sometimes the silicon vendor is able to write these sales as a loss even though they totally made many times over that to warehouse it, depending on how the accounting for depreciation worked out for them. (there are pros and cons to depreciating too early - I'm not a tax specialists)

It's a solid business, but making car parts is generally not a growth industry, you get a steady income and somewhat recession-proof too. Manufacturers might want to put your camera systems and AI inference into cars, but they don't make a ton of those kinds of decked out cars. And the components are fairly reliable and aren't replaced frequently and almost never upgraded.

Long term, I think a smaller vendor working in China or Taiwan can make all the chips that all the cars in the world need. But car manufactures would have to take on the R&D side so they can fully specify what they want their chips to do for the next 5, 10, and 15 years. If multiple car makers can get together on standardizing some of the digital components and commoditize these parts, then they could save a ton of money and have parts that really are available for decades. But honestly fat chance in that happening.

Car companies are so risk adverse they won't take the problem on. Recently Ford James Fley, Jr is taking flack for pushing ahead with Ford's EV battery plant. Investors and some of the upper management act like it's this big risky thing. While us regular people see it as obvious. You need control of the most expensive component in your EV line up. You can't let your competitors control a part of your supply chain that carries such a significant impact on your manufacturing cost. But in typical backwards automotive industry thinking, getting involved in something that isn't a 50 to 100 year old practice is considered risky. Serious buggy whip maker mentality in the car industry.

In addition to murdering us? Not the way I imagined we'd go out.

Part of the populist appeal of Make America Great Again is the idea that we can turn back the industrial age to a time when the US was dominate in the realities of the post-war and Cold War economies. There is a fantasy that we can flip the switch of globalization off and the rest of the world will follow suit. Historians will be writing about the rise and fall of our Republic for centuries like it was some obvious cause and effect; even if most of us living through it have no idea what is going on. (P.S. the books will be written in Chinese)

Basically we'll have to keep suing tech companies before the courts will recognize what is going on. And these companies are so loaded with cash that some of them are buying nuclear reactors to power their data centers. So imagine the kind of legal team that kind of money buys.