I guess we can't have buildings then either, since they kill about a billion birds a year. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fws.gov%2Fstory%2Fthre....

So, based on your numbers and those cited in the summary, we are increasing our generation capacity 2x faster than it's being absorbed by data centers.

- Data centers - 21 GW in a year
- New solar - 11.7 GW in a quarter * 4 = 46.8 GW in a year

That seems sustainable.

This article cites so many thinly-sliced statistics, making the apocalypse seem much worse than it is.

These qualifying phrases focus on the worst-hit segments of the market.

Also...

Yes, I remember! Five years ago, there was a huge hiring frenzy. Comparing today's market to that, is going to make even a healthy market look bad.

Sure, hiring is down. But not anything close to apocalyptic.

OK I'm glad to oblige. Of course, I'm 59, so I wasn't really thinking about having more kids anyway.

It's a *BUBBLE*. Bubbles blow up quickly, and then pop.

Yes, AI is real, it is already solving real problems. But not as quickly as the believers hoped. And it comes with a whole new set of problems.

Pendulums swing, and then they swing back. In 10 years, it won't still be swinging in the same direction as it is now.

ChatGPT was released *THREE* years ago. The technology is still so full of hot air nobody knows what's real and what's not. Give it a few more minutes, the jobs are still coming (and being eliminated) as happens with every new technology.

I disagree, whether we're talking about software future proofing, or generator future proofing.

The problem with future proofing, is that the future is really hard to predict. Sure, build those generators to be hydrogen-ready. But when hydrogen technology does get to the point where it's "production-ready" we'll find out that the future-proofing missed the mark, and will require a complete rebuild anyway. Then that extra money will be completely wasted.

The only way nuclear can be called "clean" is if you limit the scope of "dirty" to *air* pollution. In that limited scope, yes, nuclear is clean. But it certainly does produce waste, and highly toxic waste at that, which, if mishandled, can cause extreme damage to the environment.

If that's correct, the tech firms shouldn't have any issues defending themselves. The accusation, though, is that they *knew* the channels were suspicious.

This seems like a market opportunity.

Amazon started out by just selling books. They just bought them wholesale like every other bookstore. As they gained market share, more publishers and authors wanted their books on Amazon's site.

It would be great if a startup decided to use AI to read audio books. The first takers would be smaller publishers and authors who wanted exposure, plus classic literature that's out of copyright. If they could gain enough momentum, they might be able to start getting more popular authors and publishers on board.

I don't care if it's a rounding error, or if it's Toyota or Intel. Selling through channels that are known to be supplying criminals is not OK.

Pharmacist to judge: "It's not my problem that this guy kept coming to my store and buying enough Oxy to kill a horse every day! And besides, my sales to this guy were just a tiny fraction of my business!" Yeah that's not going to fly. The transaction was legal, nothing was stolen. But if the pharmacist knew, or should have known, that no one person could possibly need that much Oxy, the pharmacist is complicit and liable.

Maybe not GPS, but yes, I *would* expect reputable manufacturers to shut down shady distribution channels, particularly if they *knew* the channels were shady.

Or maybe, Ukrainians who live in the US are outraged that US companies are contributing to the slaughter of their people.

There, that's the password. Don't tell anyone!

As a long-time volunteer training urban youth in trade skills, what I observed is that daddy isn't around, at all. I personally drove some of them to businesses to apply for jobs, because their parents couldn't or wouldn't. Yeah, it's tough for these kids, but I have seen some work their way out of poverty, given a chance.