Most countries insist on similar conditions when asked to extradite someone, if they don't just deny the extradition all together. That's a good thing. You wouldn't want to be extradited to Saudi Arabia for drinking beer, would you?

The various city councils banned facial recognition because of too many judges wearing out their rubber approved stamps basically signing off on any warrant request placed under their noses.

Facial recognition should be used ONLY to provide similar photos that may then be compared by humans. BUT it should provide ten similar photos of different people with no indication of which one it 'believes' to be the best match.

Yes, if you commit cross-border crime, you very much are subject to the laws of the state in which the crime occurred, regardless of whether you were physically there at the time.

Now, whether you'll actually get extradited is a much more complicated question.

Yes, that's what extradition law is about. This isn't surrender as per a EAW. Extradition requires principles such as dual criminality, where what they're charged with has to be a crime in both the sending and receiving state, and speciality, where the subject can only be charged with the pre-agreed-upon list of charges. Extradition involves a high degree of sovereignty of the sending state, vs. EAW which is more like handing off a criminal in the US who fled across state lines.

If the US attempts to kidnap Assange from a British prison, the British might have rather more to say than a few cross words. There is an election coming up, and 52% of the population is convinced of Rule Britannia and absolute unequivocal sovereign rights.

I'm not suggesting physical conflict, but it will enrage the nationalists and they're more than capable of stirring up trouble of some sort.

It would also hand Trump an easy victory, which Biden won't want.

No, nobody is going to seriously consider that, at least not this side of Jan 20th.

Technically, that would be the literal reading of 1A. The Constitution governs the government, it doesn't impose any restrictions on who the government is acting on or where.

The Constitution is NOT, and never has been, about the American people. It is about what the American people decided the government should be able to do.

Teslas are not aluminum monocoque. Thanks for playing.

Like all cars, they're made from a mix of metals. I can only assume that you're thinking of the gigacastings, which are deep interior components, and if you're damaging one beyond usage, you've utterly obliterated your car already. They're not crush structures; the crush structures are mounted to them. They're also not the only main structural elements. The pillars for example are UHSS (ultra-high strength steel). But you're generally not going to be replacing or welding UHSS either. Once again, Tesla is not at all unique in this regard.

And technically you could fix mangled gigacastings, with body pulling. But body pulling isn't recommended on any monocoque car, only body-on-frame, as force transfer in monocoques is unpredictable.

As for "impinging on battery components", again, the battery is nestled between the gigacastings, making it even more internal. If you're penetrating that deep into the car, you're already talking about a writeoff.

People seem to have these weird images in their head of cars that are utterly mangled just being fixed for a practical price. That doesn't happen. Cars have outer panels and crush structures that are designed to be repaired / replaced. If you're penetrating deeper than that into primary structural members, the insurance is just going to write the car off.

Lastly: I have a Tesla. There is no "high cost of insurance". It's perfectly reasonably priced for a car of its price.

Meanwhile the entire Model 3 rear drive unit and suspension can be removed with just four bolts and a couple connectors, but you tell yourself whatever you want. And there were parts shortages in the first like 6-12 months as production ramped, but haven't been in a long time. The only thing you might have a shortage on is something new like the Cybertruck.

Batteries are not consumables. They're designed to last similar lifespans to engines + transmissions. They're warrantied for 8 years / 200k km, and you don't warranty something that you expect to die the day after warranty, or half the failures will be under the warranty period. And if you replaced an engine and a transmission, at a dealership, with a brand new one, that wouldn't exactly be cheap either. You get a better deal with third parties and salvage parts, and the same applies to EVs.

The main source of depreciation of EVs is simply how much better EVs keep getting and how quickly it's happening.

Insurance companies do not "insist that even a small ding in battery cover should lead to a total battery replacement". This is entirely made up. Nor are EV premiums "insane levels".

Just utter tripe.

It's not just a knowledge and effort thing. New Shepard is 20,6t dry mass. Falcon 9 is 22,2t dry mass and could lift an entire New Shepard to LEO using 5 times the delta-V. It's such a different difficulty level that they're not even playing the same game; New Shepard is just a carnival ride.

Meaningful things in space are not like this, they're like this. Getting "to space" is the easy part - the X15 got "to space" just by going fast and then steering up. It's orbital velocity and the energies involved that are the hard part.

True, but on the other hand, they probably wouldn't have accidentally deleted the data center.

Especially given Google's default support policy: "Talk to the hand".

It would indeed mean that IBM/Red Hat couldn't restrict the backports, that is true, but it would mean they could focus on any value add (which they could hide). So features they'd exclusively developed, and thus not in the main tree, would stay exclusively theirs and they'd be able to focus more attention on those.

This would be, as you've noted, a massive divergence from IBM's Linux strategy of late. (Back in the day, when they contributed JFS and the POWER architecture, along with a bunch of HPC profiling libraries, they were much less toxic.)

As such, it's highly improbable they'll bite. And, for that reason reason, Linux LTR reliability will inevitably plunge to Microsoft levels of incompetence.

If you look at economics that throws out the external costs of coal.

Globally fossil fuels recieve seven trillion dollars annually in public subsidies. But that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the costs it is allowed to pawn off on other parties. If fossil fuel users had to pay the externalized cost of pollution, then the world would be running on nuclear power right now.

Irrelevant, because there will be an unknown number of pre-existing bugs that cause downtime and the back porting of fixes can also introduce new regressions.

What is relevant is risk. You measure and quantify the risk for each approach. (We have estimates for defect densities and it should be straightforward to get estimates for percentage downtime. We also have estimates of the economic damage from industrial espionage and industrial sabotage.)

The better approach is the one with the lowest average costs, once all costs are calculated. Since M*N developers are already paid for, their additional cost is zero. Only additional developers would need to be costed in.

Since they're no longer fixing issues reported by industry that were already fixed upstream, their work would be entirely on fixing novel issues, so provided they are fixing more defects than the newer kernels are adding, we would be able to show lower risk and thus lower aggregate cost.

The impirtant questions are whether M*N engineers would be enough to fix bugs faster than they're added and how many additional (C) engineers would be needed to achieve this if not. (Since they're now focusing entirely on new issues, average downtime due to kernel bugs will be reduced because the distros would be able to respond faster and not rely so much on pre-existing fixes to backport to placate customers.)

M*N is already priced in, so we can ignore it.

Let's call the average wage for kernel developers A. So what we need to determine is whether A*C is strictly less than the reduction in cost to business due to the reduced risk.

Provided a value for C can be found that can achieve the desired reduction in risk, the consequence of new bugs would be immaterial as the economic damage would be less than the economic damage from downtime due to already fixed bugs.

Until the numbers gave been run, it is sheer guesswork on both our parts as to which would be more economic for businesses. But the defect density of Linux has held fairly steady for a long time, which would imply new bugs are added in direct proportion to new code. And we know how much new code gets added versus churn. So it should not be difficult to get a decent estimate on whose way works better, even without a more comprehensive analysis.