As well as the fact that when CCS was proposed back in 2012, it only included all the major American and German car makers as well (not Tesla).

It would not shock me if Tesla was not able to participate in those first few meetings, especially considering the timing going on and how there was so much FUD about "Oh, they'll never make it to large scale production."

This automation is primed to upset the short haulers and with some changes/innovation it could destroy this job sector.

A couple points:

1) Highway driving is very predictable. People don't usually do weird stuff on the highways in the same way they do when driving around town looking for a store, stopping for stoplights or stop signs, avoiding pedestrians, etc. Predictability is what car automation works well with.

2) Short haul jobs are already pretty low tier labor. Its better than flipping burgers or stocking shelves, but not by a whole lot. Plus, short haulers need a CDL the same as long haulers.

3) Tying into point 2. If you can create a theoretical limitless number of drivers for hauling loads, then you don't need large semis. My understanding is that semi size is generally the result of an optimizing function in terms of available drivers and cargo amount. You could switch to loading up more Uhaul sized trucks to deliver goods. The benefit with this is that you could monitor your fleet using regular licensed drivers instead of with CDL drivers.
After constellation ISPs started to come into service, I've imagined some trucking companies switching to automated cabs connected to the internet via those sats. If a problem occurs, they alert an on-call "support driver" that could basically take over from a call center like facility -- the private sector version of "remote drone pilots" but with trucks carrying cargo.

Boom has a way better chance. Wendover Productions did a video on the 3 super sonic jet makers (Aerion was one them) and outlined their strategies. Aerion and Spike are ('were' in Aerion's case) making private jets and banking on new advances in engineering in air frame design to help lower the "impact" of the sonic boom. The hope is that they can reduce the boom enough to get countries to allow them to fly over populated areas.

Boom's strategy however is to just do what Concord did and operate Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific routes. They'll be making a passenger plane (vs a private jet) that doesn't intend to worry too much about the advances in "boom shaping" or changes in regulation and simply go in the direction that is already safe. For anyone worrying about profitability because -- "Wasn't Concord unprofitable?" -- Wendover (maybe it was someone else?) in his video on the Concord pointed out that British Airways actually reached profitability with the plane at the end of its lifetime primarily by lowering the ticket prices from First-Class only to All-Business class, which let them get more consistent passenger numbers.

I suspect with advances in material sciences and in engine design as well, it'll probably be easier for Boom to be successful in this century compared to Concord in the previous one.

The smart decision would be to try and get in contact with the Sci-Hub crew in Russia and either ship them some HDDs to back up onto or send over some archival tapes, assuming both sides have compatible tape drives on hand. You can get like a pack of 6 LTO-7 tapes (6 to 15TB/each) for just under $500 which is about the price of a single large HDD.

My initial gut reaction was "Why?" but after seeing this line, emphasis added:

Now a days cash isn't king, but digital cash is. Everyone uses digital currency via processors like Visa or Mastercard, to do everything. Also as a result, we've seen what happens when you lose access to these processors, such as in the case of Alex Jones. You don't have any recourse.

The "Fed" becoming a digital processor means that you would have a means to do digital payments now and also have protections of the constitution. If they tried to bar your ability to accept payments for something you said, you could take them to court for 1A violations and get your payments reinstated. This isn't something you can do when dealing with Visa or Mastercard.

Other people gave good options here's another.

Try checking the paper author's CVs/Profile page on their respective institute page. They'll all have a section listing papers published, but I've also noticed that many will link to a pre-print rough draft PDF of the published paper sometimes. (Note: The draft may be missing fancy photos and graphs that might appear in the published article, but the body of the paper should be very close to the printed one.)

Don't get me wrong; coding is a great skill. It can help people to learn logical thinking and how to break problems down into steps to solve sometimes complicated looking problems. But coding is not a replacement for foreign language working.

I've been out of high school for over a decade now and I've had plenty of time to reflect on the required 2 classes of French I had to take. I forgot nearly all that I learned and instead replaced it with Japanese in college but learning French (or any foreign language) did expand my horizon in some ways. In particular, I learned what conjugating is -- sure a class lesson in English probably could have taught me this but it didn't click with me until I started doing it in French. I also learned that our languages, English in particular, are very pragmatic. Things like idioms don't make any sense when translated literally and there is often a lot of meta-sensitive information included in the words and phrases we use (ie: I don't have a concrete example, but there are many words with near identical meanings but you would choose one over the other because the other word has a negative sentiment usually attached to it). Also learning that many languages can toss out a lot of information (ie: the subject of a sentence) and rely on the listener to fill in context was kind of eye opening -- I didn't experience this till Japanese, but I've heard Spanish does it too.

Some of these things I learned over my many years of learning Japanese, but other people could pick up a few of these things in their language classes. Will a programming language teach/show you any of this? No, absolutely not. Is it important to discover these kind of things in the grand scheme of things? Probably not, but it has definitely made me more sympathetic towards non-native English speakers when they struggle with our mongrel-bastard of a language.

I know there is a philosophy of thought held by some educators, where school isn't meant to be 100% a "jobs training" program but is also meant to expand/expose students to new ideas and build better and more rounded people. For most Americans, being made to learn a second language checks that box.

Personally, I know my high school self would have preferred to have dropedp the second language since I was already learning Japanese on the side and was taking "Computer Programming" classes as well. I do find it tiring though that school districts are still trying to treat coding as if its something you need to know or you'll fail in life. They'd be better served requiring 1-2 classes of some job skill like carpentry, car mechanics, welding, plumping, electrical, etc; since most people aren't ever exposed to the possibility of going into blue collar work.

There is a lot of tech sitting inside of university research labs and some commercial labs as well. The problem with a lot of this stuff is that none of it translates to scaled manufacturing. You have scientists that are working hard and going through multiple iterations of a piece of technology (sometimes by hand) till they get something that works.

Another way of looking at this is "bespoke tech." Instead of building a one of kind yacht or a one of a kind 100 million dollar hypercar; they're building a one of a kind piece of tech -- battery, CPU, fancy ram chip, etc.

We already have that, its called employment.

The Banking/Financial sector possibly consume around 130TWh a year (this is just some random article though, who knows if the numbers are accurate).

Currently Bitcoin consumes around 116TWh a year.

Before anyone runs off and goes "Ha! See, BTC is more energy efficient than Old Finance." stop and think about it a second. Actually, let me give one more data point which is some back of the napkin math.

In 2020, ~452,000 BTC were mined. We know how much each block awards. For the first part of 2020, till May 13, each block mined gave 12.5BTC and there were 240k BTC rewarded, doing the division we find that 19,200 blocks were mined. Then after the halving 212k BTC was rewarded meaning at 6.3BTC per reward, we find that 33,650 blocks were mined. The number of transactions in each block is somewhat dynamic but averages around 1700 to 1800 transactions per block over 2020. Combining our blocks and multiplying by 1800 we find that 2020 had around 95 million transactions added to the ledger. There isn't a direct comparison that can be made between transactions and energy consumption but transactions are part of the mining process and sort of get immortalized when a block is mined and accepted by the network. I had a link but lost it, but mining in 2020 consumed ~85TWh (the figure earlier is calculated on recent rises in mining). 85TWh / 95 million gives you 894KWh per transaction for 2020.

"Didn't you say transactions don't equate to [much] energy consumed?" Yep, but if the network had less transactions moving across it, then it would also have less miners because it would indicate that no one was actually interested in BTC -- irregardless of whether the activity is just gambling activity or legit exchange of goods. So the number of transactions is tied in part to how much energy is being consumed. So having 894KWh being somewhat closely related to each transaction is quite a bit, especially when some people calculate that 100,000 transactions on the Visa network only consumes ~150KWh (the 754k number per 1120KWh, half way down the page. 1120 divided by 754k * 100k gets you the ~150KWh figure).

So back to the difference between Banking and Bitcoin. BTC consumes ~100TWh annually right now, what does that get you? More bitcoin mined and your transactions added to the ledger. That's it.

Banking and Finance consume ~130TWh annually. What does that get you? Your credit swipes approved and goods exchanged, funds removed from your bank, millions of people employed to help customers with their accounts, to manage the servers that keep the system ticking, to help expand where you can use your Visa/Mastercard/AmEx cards at, and on and on.

Sure Bitcoin might have people employed to manage server farms that are mining, but the mining margins are probably not great, so you're probably looking at skeleton crews. Exchange markets? Irrelevant -- that'd be like saying the casino or a money exchanger at the airport is critically relevant to Visa and it isn't. It's only relevant to BTC at the moment because almost no one pays their workers in Bitcoin, so if you want to play in Bitcoin you have to buy in on those markets.

tl;dr: While banking and finance might consume more than Bitcoin right now, you get way more "bang for your buck" in energy consumption from using your Visa debit card than you do from buying some LSD on the dark web with BTC.

This is likely a "Only Japan" phone. It feels a lot like a return to the clam-shell phone era in a way. Its been some years since I was in Japan, but back in early-2010s Japan was still doing their thing where they had a lot of wacky design choices for their phones and they were all Japan-only. When smartphones hit the market though, it really sank their boat. HTC was around back then and was making phones but I know HTC has mostly dipped out of the market though, they do make the Pixel still. Samsung and Apple were really eating up the market and Sony was holding on decently well, but it sounds like they're struggling in recent years.

I'll wait for MKBHD to review it, but I suspect this will be a one time thing after they discover the phone market can be brutal to manufacturers -- just look at LG.

Back in Feb when the chip shortage was starting and the companies were starting to hurt, I made the point that current gen fab tech and our ability to manufacture it, should be considered a national security threat. I also called for the US govt to consider helping out, preferably while avoiding setting up monopolies. I think all of this still stands, even with money-fat tech companies lobbying for this push.

I think a few ways we could guarantee that the market doesn't get lopsided through govt. involvement, and Americans "profit" in medium term would be to:

1) Make the government's assistance (through money) be limited to a mix of minor tax credits and low (or no) interest 10yr loans.

2) Implement a policy where electronic devices sold in the US have to have some percentage of the chips fabbed in the US at our chip facilities. Yes, it's not "free market" and upsets the movement of the way things go, but without these measures put in place, any new fab facilities we build are likely to struggle to exist as new facilities are built in dirt cheap, 0-environment regulation countries.

An example of what this type of policy might look like is that starting in 2025, an electronic device must have 5% of its chips in it (rounded up to the nearest whole number) fabbed in the US*. By 2030, this could be 10% -- ie: a phased in approach till we reach 10-15%. This will cause electronic devices to get more expensive, but may also encourage electronic manufacturing to return back to the US partially. The other option is that our chip manufacturing becomes an export product as electronics manufacturers are required to build with our chips in order to sell in our country. I believe some industries already operate like this, hence why products move back and forth between Mexico.

(*: If not the US, then maybe set up a trade deal with our close Western allies and allow the chips to come from a country within the group. This might help avoid ruffling too many feathers but also accomplish some of what we want -- decentralizing chip fabing.)

It's not the most ideal solution, but if you leave this to free market forces, then you will just end up back where we are today with 1 current gen chip maker [struggling] in the US (Intel), and the other 2 in Taiwan and South Korea -- countries that are both right next door to a country that doesn't like us.

Engineering Explained did a video on this and pretty much explained why the fears on the grid not being enough for a switch to EVs, was pretty much unfounded fear.

In a nutshell, the grid will expand with demand the same way it has over the past 100 years. 200 Million cars aren't going to come online overnight.

Also, the TX grid isn't representative of the rest of the country, and what happened in TX was largely the fault of not weatherizing -- not because electricity demand shot through the roof.

This happened last year as well.

I'll agree, most current robots aren't there yet for catching people. But Handle, the bot that BD seems to have discontinued at this point, was probably the bot that jumped out at me the most and made me consider a future with robots in Law enforcement. Bipedal wheeled bots that might weigh similar to a small woman. Handle could get up to 30-35MPH if I recall right.

As for what they could do if they catch them? Bolo tie their arms and legs? Hit them with a high power taser? A robot could theoretically carry a lot more of an arsenal on them than a cop does and have almost instant access to any of it depending on how you build them.

As to how robots could improve the situation. Fleeing suspects you wouldn't shoot at, you'd sick the robot pack on them (instead of dogs), which could maybe instant deploy a fleet of flying drones to keep track of a person.

You're also forgetting all the shootings happening during mental health cases where cops show up and immediately shoot someone within a few minutes of being on the scene -- like that one mental health worker w/ an autistic kid that got shot while face down on the pavement. Or the cases of kids getting shot over a fake gun. Or someone opening a door with a gun on hand and getting shot before they can do anything. If the Breona Taylor case had been executed using robots for the breach and enter, I wonder if she would still be alive? Ditto for that one white guy that got killed for opening his apartment with a gun in hand.

In nearly all of these cases it seemed like the cops were wound up super tight because they themselves had to be there on the frontline, risking their lives. If a robot was the first one in to communicate [through], then things might have gone different/easier.