If Europe cannot offer more than €6.7 billion to create an alternative infrastructure to AWS, GCP and Azure then they better prepare an excuse for why they haven't managed to create AI.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-cloud...

On the other hand, freezing and boiling water makes sense, because you know that you have to drive carefully when the temperature is below 0 C.

And humans will be humans. There will be new games, like drone wars on distant planets, where any production capacity and energy will be used. And since everything is very efficient, there will be no food left for birds or even poor humans.

Newspapers aren't swimming in money because they don't go all in on online content. Moderating comments, choosing information for their readers, that's their core competence. Writing articles or printing is secondary.

> they [the central banks] can expand the money supply to keep the system propped up.

They have to expand money supply to keep the value of the currencies stable as long as most money is not spent. The economy depends not on the supply of money but on the stability of the money.

By which force do central banks have to keep increasing the money supply once people start spending? There is no reason to do so and thus no reason for fiat currencies to collapse.

It's more likely that they increase interest rates when people start spending again, and thus reduce supply and as a consequence, keep the value of money stable.

You could organize some crowd funding to expand it to the feature set you need.

If it quacks like a duck, is it already a duck?

What is bitcoin's value anchor? What happens if all the people who are afraid of regular currency collapses have spent their money on bitcoin? Who will provide the liquidity to drive the demand that keeps the value high?

When the covid crisis is over and people want to invest their bitcoins into new opportunities, won't we see a huge crash because there is no money available for all the bitcoins that are supposed to be liquidated?

Let scientists among themselves figure out who is brilliant. If the system gets corrupted, a second group of scientists will emerge who claim to be the real deal. Let them battle it out and choose the smarter group for further funding.

In other words, do it the way it was done before the influx of the administrative overhead.

Additionally, if that bank goes bankrupt, the money is not secured.

Naively I would assume that the worst would be that when such a small investor sells his shares then everybody else has an opportunity to make a cheap offer.

There is no more than 100% wrong. Saying it is 1000% wrong implies that you are arguing emotionally, not rationally.

Rationally, it doesn't matter how google reacts to their non-customers. There is no obligation to treat them well. The correct approach for non-customers is to either become a customer or to switch to another provider.

If somebody is wrong it is the non-customers who could fix the situation. Their unwillingness to change email providers is what enables google to keep on providing that bad service.