And Orange Roughy, available in Australian fish and chip shops, spawned around the same time as the first British colony there.

This plant became operational after 2 years and has started paying back the investment. If your project is going to take 20 years before it comes online, you are going to need much, much higher returns to justify the investment. There is also a lot more risk involved in keeping a project alive and viable over a 20 year period, again pumping the expected returns needed before investors will invest.

High level, you raise a good point. However:

    > This plant became operational after 2 years and has started paying back the investment.

Do we know if this project is currently cash-flow positive? One way that this project could be initially loss-making: the labour and maintenance costs exceed revenues from selling electricity.

I don't know. It could be profitable enough to fund the later stages of the build, or proof enough to bring in more risk adverse investors. I don't think we would be seeing press releases if the numbers show that continuing the build is economically doomed.

If a human was manually reviewing your logs, maybe. But that isn't the problem. Your stream is already a pile of garbage amongst billions of other piles of garbage. Programs will find the keywords they are looking for no matter if they are looking in a big pile of garbage or small.

If you want supply independence, you have to start sometime. It is unlikely that Taiwan joins the EU and solves the problem that way.

Yes, that sort of boycott requires sacrifice, choosing to not deal with people who have different opinions. Its why mostly people might boycott meat but not people who eat meat.

Once you change the artwork and branding, why is there no legal right to sell? Your defense against cloning are trademark, patent, copyright and trade secret. And the lawyers and money to enforce it and the courts to agree. And if the AI does it, rather than you feeding it copyrighted or trademarked assets, then did you violate copyright or trademark law or did the AI company or does this no longer make sense in a post AI world? The article touches on how current AI services launder copyright and trademark in the 'choose one' section.

A bot owners enshittification is a site admins salvation. The toggle is trivial to turn on or off. What will site admins do I wonder?

That's not my point. Cloudflare is blocking all unregistered automation as "AI Training" by default. My guess is we will see almost no one changing that default, as opposed to the inverse where only some sites will be forced to enable the blocks. Opt-out is a very bad model for things like this because it heavily hurts users (especially assistive users) while most websites won't have a strong enough opinion to even consider it.

I don't think we will see Cloudflare enabling an "age assurance" requirement by default. I feel like I could trust them slightly more than a site operator, depending on how it's performed, but I also feel like it would be very easy for them to do much, much worse than any site operator, due to the inherent power of being a GAA. (Global Active Adversary, to those not familiar)

I think it is the point. Bots have become the enemy. Most websites will have a strong opinion first time they look at the weblogs and realize how much of their capacity and money is being used for... something other than what they wanted it to be used for. Bots are no longer a rounding error. And yes, there are certainly innocent victims in the roadkill.

It's the server operator's choice what sort of clients they wish to serve, and how.

Exactly, Cloudflare should not be blocking bots for everyone by default, they should leave it up to the operators!!

The server operators chose Cloudflare and Cloudflare’s defaults.

Capitalism, starting the moment TLD registrars first bid for the monopoly to charge rent. And continuing today, where I think only Cloudflare offer below or at cost domain registration, charging nothing themselves and just passing on the other mandatory fees to the rent seekers. It has had centralization at its heart since the beginning, when someone had to allocate IP addresses and everyone else had to agree (or we would have internets and not The Internet), which enabled this. I wonder if it would have turned out differently if, instead of central IP address allocation, clients had generated a UUID and it was accepted on The Internet unless consensus agreed it wasn't unique? But I don't think we knew how to do that then and technical limitations. Heck, crypto export laws would have killed it and required a central authority to prove that a UUID was you and not an imposter.

I'm surprised the market accepted this sort of franchisee set pricing. When I saw how airport prices differed from regular prices, I just tried harder to avoid airport food. Its a world where people drive distances for a cent per liter in petrol, but they don't pay attention to where they can get their same dinner cheaper?

"always free to determine the final price" indicates they are aware they are forcing collusion and creating an illegal cartel. Head office telling two competing franchises how much to charge is essentially the same as two competing franchisees agreeing to pricing over a round of golf. If it gets that far, will be interesting to see who ends up holding that bag.

Seems like that's the one weird trick to escape the law in the land of the free:

> McDonald's has power over decisions that can make or break a franchisee's business, such as their eligibility to renew or open new stores.

You're free to reject their prices but they're free to refuse to renew your contract. After all, what is the government going to do, force two parties to do business with each other and renew a contract? Freedom for all.