You have a point here. It doesn't make sense that a company should get to keep the upside while having downside protection from the government. The problem is that the government makes the biggest bloated legacy nightmare of a corporation look like a 10 person startup. Between the two options I would rather have a pile of my tax money set on fire once every decade decade or so.
We should have let the auto industry fail in 2008 too. The factories and IP still would be there for more innovative entrepreneurs to buy and make use of. Instead we have 3 legacy companies that can't even deliver an EV to compete with Tesla after 15 years of pretending to try.
When students sued the residency system for anti-trust congress passed legislation specifically exempting them from anti-trust completely. They don't need to strike to get their way.
They need to be near a high bandwidth fiber connection, but with relatively cheap land. So the outer edges of major cities are prime locations, with Ashburn VA being the prime example. There is no reason to put them further out because the added costs don't make sense and the data centers actually have minimal impact on the surrounding population outside of hyperventilating conspiracy theorists, Ashburn VA also being the prime example.
So it's just an incredibly stupid way to compare the power grids in Texas vs Sweden. It's not even accurate because the marginal watt during the day looks very different than the overall grid average.
IMO low level offenses like shoplifting would be better served by a quick cheap ass kicking on the spot by the police with no charges filed. You get the deterrent effect without the massive waste of resources.
Almost never. The larger the corporation the more strictly the rules are followed. I have worked for fintech startups and have some horrifying stories that would absolutely never fly at a larger company.
That is just a one OOM scaling. It's not that difficult, especially considering that Starship just delivered the 3rd largest payload ever launched and it wasn't even at capacity.
TOS has nothing to do with copyright. A TOS can prevent scraping, training, or any other activity that is not covered by copyright. Public web scraping is subject only to copyright because no TOS has been agreed to, but what Meta is doing here applies to scraping things that are not available on the public web.
That backlash is based on conspiracy theories about data centers using up all the water and the legitimate fear of AI taking their jobs, not anything to do with privacy.
I'm talking about now. Most recently the liberals took their case all the way to the supreme court (and lost) insisting on their right to run a racial quota system in universities.
In the US it's always the liberals arguing for special treatment baked into the law for their favored groups and the conservatives argue for equal treatment. The liberals then argue back that equal treatment is de facto discrimination against then.
But implicit in your statement is "accept my position on immigration." You are probably not interested in giving in to the conservative position on immigration in order to get them on your side against Altman.
Your heavily restricted, highly educated, legal immigration examples are a tiny fraction of what immigration is in the US. The tens of millions of unskilled illegals allowed into the country is a wage suppression tool.
But we are not really like Milhouse. In reality the teachers didn't care about us enough to make fun of us in the teachers lounge. We were just that year's batch of work soon to be forgotten when they move on to the next. This is exactly the same as the advertising companies. You are just a member of the cohort of a particular target campaign. Nobody cares about you or even knows you are part of that target cohort.
Unless you become a target of the government. Then people a lot worse than any teacher you ever had will be looking through it, and they, unfortunately, do care.