That they can afford only while the cost is subsidized. Then the well-in-a-bottle bubble will explode because everyone will realize that the business has never been sustainable, nobody really believed in it after all. But the well now has been damaged beyond repair.

It's always good to remind that local democracy only is not enough - for instabce, locals voting if they accept, or not, a company on his neighbor, like in US they do for a new Walmart, if I know correct (correct me if I am wrong). This is NOT enough: US in the 20's learned that monopolies need to be forbidden, obligating a big company, even by hardwork and being genuinely better than others, to sell more than 1/3rd of the market share to its competitors, something like that. This is brilliant solution to be with the local voting in everything, mainly in taxes (no taxation without representation). This is US (and Switzerland) strong force, I envy that from Brazil. This monopoly-breaking does not occur to big techs - maybe for fear of China, I don't know -, and maybe this is a root cause for data center giants to be able to do so many unsettling things - I am guessing a lot now, hard to think about. Would we have the giant data centers used to make LLMs work so well - Amazon's, Google', Microsoft's, Meta's - if US had focused on not allowing this companies to buy everyone around and grow more than 33% of their markets? Hard question. This may be a thought on localized economies versus centralized/globalized economies. Ok, forget about: talking about monopolies and/or local voting does not suit this topic well.