Isn't this opt-in? How does this hurt you?

Such a cheap bribe holy crap.

If this means that the fall of OpenAI will cause Oracle and Nvidia to crash and downsize, bubbles aren't completely bad.

The argument doesn’t hold water. Companies aren’t pushing RTO because they want to pay higher salaries to office-bound staff in expensive metros. If raw “input–output” and cheap labour were the only metric, they’d go fully remote, tap global markets, and slash payroll overnight.

RTO is about control and optics, not cost optimisation. It’s management preference, real estate sunk costs, and the illusion of productivity through visibility. Actual delivery of work is the only thing that matters in tech - and remote delivery has already proven itself at scale.

The idea that “physical location is your greatest asset” is backwards. If that were true, San Francisco developers wouldn’t already be competing with contractors in Bangalore and Bucharest. They are - yet the jobs remain, because employers value capability, not postcode.

In short: RTO doesn’t protect American tech workers from global competition. It just wastes time in traffic and props up bad management.

What does this mean? If there is no regulator, someone else will use force to prevent voluntary mutually beneficial deals from taking place?

What's the right consequence in your opinion?

What is not factored into the above is how much is going to be grown anyway. Corn yield in particular can quickly surprise you. Even if you try to only grow enough for food, there will be years where you still have way more than you can handle.

That is why we started producing corn-based ethanol. It wasn't intended to see people grow corn for it, but rather clean up the unmanageable excesses realized in the due course of growing it for food-based reasons that otherwise would have been left out to rot. In that vein, J is insignificant as it is spent either way.

The problem is that humans aren't very good at moderation. A little ethanol production is quite sensible, but once humans get it into their head something might be sensible in small doses they have to take it to a ridiculous extreme... You see that in everything.

No they aren’t.

Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral.

Fossil fuels increase atmospheric carbon.

Now, if we did make biofuels and reinject them into the ground, yes it would reduce atmospheric carbon.

But neutral is strictly better than increasing, regardless yes?

Australia has an unenviable track record of promising sounding companies that get funding from government sources and soon go belly up.

Poor implemenation, poor quality control, complacency and the lack of educated personnel all contribute to this.

Meanwhile, the technology is studied, improved and transferred by enterprising Chinese and soon becomes a billion dollar company in Guangdong.