Right, so the logical response would be to collectively own them. But that's not what this parasite wants.

Defending that an argument CAN be true in an extremely narrow subset is an example of a really stupid argument, and only highlights the stupidity of the original argument.

You can’t argue with the correctness of his statement. You need other arguments. These arguments exist.

Here's a counterargument: The resources wouldn't be scarce if his company didn't buy all of it for exetremely questionable gain. (Three years into the bubble, and AI compute is still being sold at a subsidized rate. You'd think if enough genuine demand existed to justify the buildout, you'd have to pay dearly for any AI use.

See, the thing is though, all of these things are designed with some kind of running hours in mind. If a car is used more, it'll wear our faster so it's either using it a lot in a short time or less in a long time, its utility ends up being the same so there's no direct gain from not letting it sit idle. That's why passive robotaxis are a pretty dumb idea.

But yes there are things that really only wear out from time spent existing. A pencil's lifespan is purely defined from its use, a cast iron pan can pretty much be used indefinitely. Cars and drills are more like pencils imo. RAM might be more like a cast iron pan though, although trace erosion is still a thing.