Am I misunderstanding this entire ordeal, or are Anthropic's policies not precisely what the DOD agreed to in its initial contract with Anthropic? Did the DOD not then seek to change the contract terms, to which Anthropic refused?

If I sell the DOD a service with contracted terms X/Y/Z, the DOD agrees, then later asks me to drop Z, and I refuse, how would that warrant the legal definition of a supply chain risk? How is the appropriate response for the DOD not to simply find another service provider?

I'm also a bit confused by that criticism. If Big Tech wants to use a portion of their ginormous profits to create a much larger market for the commercialization of small reactors, it sounds like a net positive to me. The data center construction spree is basically, in part, a giant private stimulus program for our energy supply. Yeah it's messy in the short run, but considering how much of Big Tech's profits are arguably undeserved, I'll take it over other options if regulatory & legislative actions lack feasibility.

Also, our current system grossly undermines the functionality of our market economy. A lack of pricing for negative externalities will essentially always result in the basic concept of market failure.

Run inaccurate pricing of carbon emissions long enough and something bad is bound to happen. Same ordeal with cattle ranching & agriculture to feed it in the Amazon basin: >20% of the 55-million-year-old Amazon rainforest has been degraded for cattle in the past 55 years, partially because consumers don't pay accurate prices and producers don't pay accurate costs.

The unwillingness to merely partially solve obvious market failures via accurate pricing is a catastrophic hypocrisy in those among us who thump their chests about 'free markets' while conflating the concept with modern capitalism.