
I don’t think it’s a doomer comment at all, I think the last paragraph is trying to tell you without saying the word “datacenter” to go look up the addresses of data centers.
He / They

I don’t think it’s a doomer comment at all, I think the last paragraph is trying to tell you without saying the word “datacenter” to go look up the addresses of data centers.

That’s true, but the reasons they did it are not their fault.
There’s a name for the thing that demands minimal spending on public services and national spending on private business, even at the expense of human life…

In other countries than the US that distinction actually means a lot more. For instance, some countries will not allow a bank to repossess cars or houses once a simple majority of the loan has been repaid. In the US, you could be on the final 1 cent payment and the bank, from a legal standpoint, can foreclose on the whole thing if you fail to pay it. In realistic terms, it’s theirs until the loan is entirely repaid.

I don’t know, I think that a “hobby” should be linked to use or an activity, specifically, not simply ownership. Consumerism for the endorphins isn’t really a ‘hobby’, it’s an addiction at best (and I have some personal experience in this area).
If you’re renting or leasing cars for a specific use, like racing or camping, I think that’s completely defensible; I even think certain vehicles like RVs should probably mainly be rented or leased, to make sense.
But “having the newest car for my ego” isn’t a ‘hobby’ without diluting the meaning to nothingness.
No one would surrender to the Dread Pirate Tom.

Any time you attempt to convert it into a usable asset, including using it as collateral or citing it as an asset for loans or investment capital solicitation, it should be taxed. Once someone accepts its value in exchange for something, it’s no longer speculative.

I just started a new job, and after I (imo) aced the remote interview, they brought me in for an in-person, which didn’t seem unusual. I was surprised when they started asking all the same questions as in the remote and take-home interviews, but clearly they’ve been hitting issues with this.
I think this is actually advantageous to us in a way, because clearly AI is something of a system shock to many people right now, whereas in a hundred years it may have not been nearly as apparent as the danger it is (and I don’t mean LLMs, I mean AI in general, especially for surveillance and weapons).