Anything to back those claims up? I use Firefox and didn't really notice this (although I am rarely on battery), and other than Google Meet making my machine throttle (and I blame that on Google not on Mozilla), I don't use Chrome for anything else for my browsing.

You make it sound way simpler than it is. Their ToS are probably written in a way they are fully protected in cases like this.

ToS are not laws and can not override laws. If you are in any civilized jurisdiction, such as EU, you can sue.

> You go to a university because you are deeply interested in understanding the subject that you study. Doing the homework and the tests are just the "goalposts" to check for yourself whether you made progress on this.

This is probably not true for majority of people. Most go to school because it is mandatory, pushed by parents and society, and university gives you credentials and better job opportunities. Homework and tests are a way to get a number grade on 'how well you memorized something', it doesn't really measure a deep understanding of the topic.

> Homework and tests are a way to get a number grade on 'how well you memorized something', it doesn't really measure a deep understanding of the topic.

As I said: they are goalposts.

Typically homework and tests are sufficiently easy (yes, there are exceptions) that if you fail them, you can assume that you didn't make sufficient progress in improving your understanding.

But I do agree that at least sometimes the difference between being good and exceptional at homework and tests can indeed be rote, "unnecessary" memorization.

Uni grading Brownian-walks around edu trends, but misses the point that improving one's (and humanity's) lot depends on a tiny loop:

- doing - failing - discovery>learning - remembering

With learning predicated on both failing and remembering it's unfortunate uni scores on 100% successful doing but doesn't teach failing well, and scores for remembering but not for learning well.

RAM is used outside of the US as well.

You are saying there will be even more demand for RAM and that will cause the prices to crash?

The chance is that they cache out during IPO, and will lose interest to increase capacity, some/many contracts will be canceled, and demand being reduced.

Perhaps all hobbyst developers interested in local AI combined is a smaller demand than AI companies hoarding parts. That would make demand decrease.

Exactly, AI firms can and will pay premium to hoard, and without that pressure hobbyists and regular users will let demand slide down to "normal" levels.

Except, Chinese firms have entered the market now to capture the public market while the "top tier" firms supply AI firms. If the AI firms stops buying everything the toptier firms will come back into a market that has begun to be overrun by cheaper Chinese alternatives. It could get damn bloody (but good for consumers).

Lots of cheap chinese RAM is exactly what we need right now. RAM used to be cheap, it was a common excuse for not optimizing software 10 years ago ("this thing is cheap, don't worry about Electron!")

Not using GAAP, so this is just PR for them.

Please don't ask those rational questions, revenue is all that maters.

Profitability claims don't really add up. They are not clear about what accounting methods they are using, and even if they might somehow show profitable quarter, they stated in their leak of numbers to WSJ that they might not end up the year being profitable.

This is just to pump their numbers for the IPO, profitability is nowhere close until we see the real numbers.