There's really only space on a mouse for one wire coming out, so if that wire is HDMI it'll be annoying to hook this thing up to a keyboard.

On the other hand, if they built this thing with a USB-C port then it could be pretty neat. You could sit down at a desk with a USB 3.1 Hub, a keyboard, and a monitor and just plug in your mouse and be ready to go. The USB 3.1 cable would happily handle power, video, and the USB keyboard.

On the other hand, it'd probably make more sense to just have a regular mouse at the desk and hook up your cellphone or something to be the computer.

You can't really separate those things. The simple fact of securing information is that once it's out you have zero control over where it goes.

As a company, the only outside people who should get access to your information are your lawyers and entities that have signed an NDA. Unless GCHQ is going to sign an NDA, a competent Airbus managment can not tolerate snooping.

How else would regulators and lawmakers get input on policy?

If you're going to pass a law that effects, say, orange juice production then it's important to consult with Dole Food Company to find out what the impact of the proposed law will actually be. Nobody else knows, and you can't just guess.

Now, you know they're going to give you biased testimony. If you're trying to decide what drinks to subsidize for low-income school lunches, the (completely legitimate) scientist from Dole is going to tell you that sugar isn't the greatest for kids, but that the sugar in orange juice isn't as bad as that in Coca Cola because it's from oranges not corn. And the other nutrients in orange juice totally make up for the disadvantages of fruit sugar - you wouldn't want those disadvantaged kids getting scurvy.

The guy from Coke is going to tell you that all sugar is the same. It's just a carbohydrate, and in fact it raises blood sugar less by weight than the hot dog rolls the kids are drinking it with.

And there's no real way to get an unbiased voice. You could use government funds to fly a scientist out to the hearing, but then you have to pick who to fly out. You're a lawmaker, and you're not going to be able to pick a sugar metabolism scientist. That's not your field. All you can do is try to find a stakeholder to suggest someone. Who are you going to call? The American Medical Association now finally might send someone who says "kids shouldn't be drinking sugar", but how do you balance that against the orange juice guys and chocolate milk guys saying that the sugar isn't a big deal compared to the other nutrients in the drinks?

If you create a government science board, it'll have to hire established scientists. They got funding somewhere for their previous research. Unless you want to fund someone to find out why sugar is bad, you won't find someone who will say it. And then all you've got is the thing you asked for - it's obviously not worth anything.

Commercial regulations are an interesting beast.

Ostensibly, they exist to improve the functioning of the market. For example, in the US packaged food is required to have nutrition information labels so that customers can distinguish different products nutritionally. And this can be very valuable. If you're on a low salt diet, it's important to be able to find the canned green beans that actually have less salt in them.

Unfortunately, they have a bunch of other effects as well. They create barriers to market entry. If you want to sell packaged food, you have to make sure every package has identical contents and then have those contents lab tested to determine the exact nutritional ratios. This means very tight manufacturing tolerances, and mean that any packaged food that says "homemade" on it is lying - unless someone has a food production factory in their house. Packaged food that isn't manufactured on a very precise assembly line is illegal. This may not be a bad thing - we expect packaged food to be consistent - but it's a thing.

And, as we see in the Tesla situation, it locks in established business models. There's no specific benefit to the consumer from the exact model of car sales we have compared to any of the other possibilities. But everyone used that model, so it became mandated by regulation in some places.

The problem comes when you take into account the way regulations get made. Regulations (and laws) are proposed by people who want some new policy enforced. Then they're evaluated based on the input of experts and stakeholders. In practice, "experts and stakeholders" means paid lobbyists, because nobody else has the time to show up for a hearing on how cars are sold, how food is packaged, or whether there should be a tariff on sugar.

The study of how this works is a branch of economics called public choice theory. Spoiler: The public interest is not the primary driver of regulation. Regulations where the benefit to existing producers from locked in business models or barriers to entry are greater than the costs are what gets enacted. Any benefit to the public is frequently a side effect, and is very carefully tuned to optimize cost vs. market advantage for the regulated industry.

There are several concrete basic income proposals that would potentially decrease the cost of welfare while providing a basic income to everyone.

e.g. This Newsweek Article

The community college I went to had transfer programs and transfer agreements with several local 4-year schools. Every credit I took transferred (although a couple courses transferred as "generic electives" rather than to similar courses, since the 4-year school wasn't convinced by their course descriptions).

I had no trouble doing a 5-year masters in CS at a reasonable state school starting from community college.

You're underestimating how big 3 x 10^14 is.

Your "here" is in a specific game state. That's current game state. It probably won't come up again unless you play another 3 x 10^14 games.

Nonsense. Comcast figured this out ages ago. For each TCP stream, you set the first 64k to be high priority and everything after that to be low priority. You declare UDP packets with the same (source, dest) to be a stream and do the same with those.

If you want to be more clever than that, you can favor constant rate low-bandwidth streams. This makes VoIP and gamering users happy.

Finally, you also track per user usage. The first X megs in an hour is default priority, and anything after that is progressively lower priority or even throttled. For airplane internet, I'd make X like 50.

Absolutely, because everyone paid the the same for the same service.

It's perfectly possible to do per-user load balancing. If you advertised "up to 100 Mbps, speeds may be lower at peak times" and then oversold a 1 gig link to 100 people, then prioritize the first 10Mbps of each user's packets. Everyone's online games, VoIP traffic, streaming music, web browsing, and email will work perfectly. That one guy who's streaming 5 HD Netflix movies will have to suck it up. The guy who's torrenting will get 50Mbps of low priority traffic and probably not even notice

In most of the world, clean fresh water simply isn't a rare resource. Globally, the stuff is so abundant that humanity really couldn't "waste" it if we actively tried.

The problem is that moving water is expensive, and in some specific places water is *locally* rare. In those places water conservation makes sense, because the alternatives are really expensive. But that doesn't mean anyone should be worrying about water supplies in, say, the eastern US.

The main reason for a six month release cycle is to provide drivers for new hardware.

Since hardware drivers are integrated with the kernel and window system, supporting new drivers requires upgrading the core system.

If aren't upgrading your hardware constantly, there's no reason to update beyond the latest LTS. If you're buying this week's Nvidia card or a laptop with a new wireless card, then you'll want to use the latest Ubuntu release to get support for it.

Bullshit.

First, radioactive materials aren't that dangerous. You don't want to be near them, but it's only moderately worse than any other common industrial waste. Second, people can read signs even after revolutions. If you put "severe radiation, stay out" on a concrete building, it'll be fine.

Mining uranium is one of the dirtiest parts of the process. The idea that we should mine out all the easily accessible Uranium is just as foolish as to drill all the oil or mine all the coal.

With breeder reactors, either designs like the LFTR or more established designs like SFRs, we don't need to mine significant amounts of additional fissionables for a century. And with the SFRs there's not much left to develop - we can just deploy the existing designs more widely.

As Level 3 already pointed out, requesting traffic settlement is absurd when your customers don't even have symmetric connections. It's just gaming the system, and when people game the system the system changes.

All of them, if we're serious about this democracy game we claim to be playing.

If you're going to say that the government owns the roads, then the government is separate from and rules over the people. We have a word for that, it's called Feudalism.