Look at how the EU is doing this.

By law, all companies (so also the subsidiary of the telco that owns/maintains/operates the cables and other local infrastructure) have to get access to the same cables at the same price.

Works great. Lots of ISPs to choose from where-ever you live; excellent prices and service quality.

Legal - for whom?

For your jurisdiction? For the US jurisdiction (or whatever Facebook's HQ falls under - it being the US this may differ per state of course), or what Zuckerberg himself considers legal/disgusting?

If you can see that little, it's not safe to drive at the speed limit. You should slow down to a safe speed - allowing you to stop whenever there's an obstacle in front of you. This may be a pedestrian, but also another car that's stopped due to traffic ahead. If your vision is about two meters, that's not much more than walking speed.

That said, if it rains that hard, you'd better park your car at an elevated spot and sit it out, instead of getting hit by a flash flood.

Or something like: "oh, obstacle ahead. Car is in self-driving mode, it's going to slow down and come to a stop. It'll start doing that about now. Mmm... It's a bit slow in reacting. Shouldn't it start braking? Wait, what, it's not reacting!" And by that time it's too late to stop, and the obstacle (pedestrian, truck blocking the road trying to make a turn, whatever) gets hit.

The problem: when should the human intervene?
In case of sudden obstacles the car will probably react before the human driver even realises there's an obstacle - and that's for humans that are actively driving. If the car doesn't react, the human driver will be too late to take over.
For obstacles seen from afar (and e.g. traffic lights) the human expects the car to react, so won't do anything until he realises the car doesn't react, and then it's too late.

Linux (or better: open source, Linux is merely the public face of the open source movement) started as something small.
Then it started to grow, become bigger and bigger.
They tried radiotherapy (SCO) to get rid of it, but the treatment failed miserably. It was too little, too late.
The Open Source cancer had already started to spread, leaving the server world and entering the desktop world.
(by now the time line is well past the "cancer" remark but the cancerous spread continues).
It took over a larger part of MS's main rival (Apple - OS-X).
It then spread to mobile world (Android), quickly dominating it.
It spread to the browser world (Mozilla, Chromium). It forced MS to amputate their IE. The replacement (Edge) is a mere prosthetic. It can't take the place of the original.
There's nothing MS can do about it any more. Open Source continues to grow, and like a cancer it's killing its host (Windows - arguably in part responsible for the ubiquitous PC itself).

The only thing that goes really wrong in the comparison is that a cancer usually dies with its host. Open Source doesn't

How come a country as highly developed and as rich as the USA doesn't even have A/C in schools in what is possibly one of the hottest parts of the country?
And, as others pointed out, an electricity network that is not even able to provide the power for those A/C units?
At maybe 10 kW per classroom (with halfway decent isolation that should be more than enough to cool it down) that's a mere 25 MW of electricity - spread out over the network.

To get Wikipedia on a data connection without data charges those people would have some mobile Internet device (e.g. a smartpone), and a mobile data connection, normally paid for already.

Now SOME providers in their country offer access to one web site (i.e. Wikipedia) for free (i.e. included in their data plan). Stopping this project, or cancelling existing such contracts, does not cut off those people from Wikipedia. It will just be included in their normal data charges - just like users of the other providers in the same country. Also why would it have to be limited to Wikipedia, and not also say the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and a few international news papers?

I don't see much difference with what is (used to be?) offered around my place for packages that include free access to WhatsApp and the mobile site of Facebook. I don't know if Facebook pays for that, actually I doubt it.

Net neutrality is about not giving preferred access to certain sites, or giving different rates (cost, speed) to access different sites using the same connection or being allowed to access certain sites at all. That is regardless of whether the site(s) in question pay for their preferred access.

These agreements ought to be illegal, and in many countries they would be (and rightfully so).

Those are definitely not mutually exclusive.
I've developed a system (hardware & software - for monitoring and automation of hydroponic growing) based completely on open source/open hardware components, and as soon as I get around figuring out what I'm doing wrong with Github will have it open sourced myself. Software code, circuit diagrams, and probably even the PCB designs.
In the meantime I'm talking to some people on commercialising the whole thing.
My business model is two-fold. I'm available for hire to do similar projects or to help implement my system in another (including my expertise on the hydroponic growing part), and sell a finished product to end users.
There are lots of people out there that will want to use it, but don't have the skill (or time/interest) to build it from scratch. It's ready to go. Others may want to tinker with it. Change the software, whatever. That's explicitly allowed, and that's where the open source and open hardware comes in play - I'd like to cater to that market, too. It seems to be a pretty big chunk of hydroponic hobby growers have at least the skills to do so.
Of course other companies may try to clone what I have, and make their own. I'm not too afraid of that, they can't provide any support as they don't have the experience with the product I do.

A completely failed attack on an airport can do serious damage for decades.

Or are we allowed to bring bottles of water again?

Buses and so work poorly for those sprawling cities the US likes to build. Too few people for the same route at the same time.

On the other hand, taking TFS at face value (which may be a bad idea considering other comments): if Uber and Lyft were so mighty popular it actually reduced car ownership and private car use, this also means the existing, licensed and legal, taxi companies could do a lot more business. The big question would be, why would a private taxi company like Uber or Lyft put a dent in private car ownership, while the long established taxi companies can not? That points to a serious case of mismanagement from the side of those taxi companies.

That's how the low cost carriers found their inroads in the current market. It'll happen again in such a scenario.

Why in every situation? Why not at least as good overall? There may be situations the human does better, other situations the autopilot does better.

Same for bitcoin and all the other cryptocurrencies. That's why I added "good luck converting them".

The original bitcoin seems to be fairly liquid, and reasonably easy to convert in reasonably large volume, though if someone wants to convert any significant amount (say a thousand of them) they'd likely run into serious trouble already.

It's all speculative, highly speculative. Just like most stocks on the stock market (and all short term movements of their value). There are few if any companies that would be able to buy back all their stock at current rates due to the high speculative factor in the price.

It sound more like that they created what is effectively an entirely new currency, after all the two are incompatible.

So somehow, they created a huge amount of value (on paper, at least - good luck converting all these "coins" in real world cash) unless the original BTC has dropped by USD 600 per coin at the same time. Nothing like it is mentioned in TFS.

So originally you had one BTC valued at USD 2,700. After the split you still have your BTC valued at USD 2,700, but on top of that a BTC-Cash that's valued at USD 600. So now your holding has a paper value of USD 3,300.

Weird. But then I've also never really understood the speculation going on in stock markets and futures and commodities and whatnot.