Well, isn't that okay? All the companies are racing to capture a nascent market. It would make sense to spend beyond current demand and even projected 5Y demand if it gives you a larger share of a market that might last 20+ years
Because one executive got flustered and gave a random number to Trump, and therefore that's representative of the other 3 companies in the list?
For comparison, Google said $250b, Microsoft said $80b, but Apple has said $600bn. Meta currently spends ~$100bn.
Even that's debatable because he walked back on the number shortly after
>Once the discussion concluded, Zuckerberg leaned over to Trump to privately admit the president had caught him off guard. "I'm sorry I wasn't ready...I wasn't sure what number you wanted to go with," Zuckerberg said in a revealing moment caught on a hot mic.
And somehow he never lied? Or he wasn't trying to brown nose? Because it literally has to be a lie if he changed his story and it's hard to deny that he appears to be trying to curry favor.
Of course this does suggest a strategy for censoring topics that you don't want on the front page of HN: deploy a bot army to add inflammatory comments. I feel like I've seen effect on other posts (the tylenol post currently on the front page has that smell) but who knows.
I think presidential power must be limited, and ways to limit sycophants in government needs to be introduced. May be sometime in the future...