The article complains about government regulation slowing progress. It does not mention why the government wanted the regulation.

Let me be clear, ALL government regulations slow progress. Most of the time it is worth it. I think everyone will agree that government restrictions on Thalidomide (dangerous sedative that causes birth defects, but has real medical advantages) are a good thing even though it slowed progress on certain cancers.

This is incredibly bad reporting.

The purpose of the RISC-V regulation is because RISC-V chips are used in certain US military devices. If you trust China with some of America's technological secrets, then obviously you should not regulate the RISC-V technology. If you think the US should not trust China with it's military secrets, then the relatively small loss in technological innovation is a no brainer, and the regulations are obviously a good thing.

Talking about the issue without even mentioning the fact that the RISC-V technology is a military secret is the kind of thing someone does after they have been bribed by foreign 'lobbyists'.

Note, I am not myself embracing an opinion on whether the technology should or should not be regulated. I dot know whether the RISC-V is an important government secret, or junk.

I do however know that not mentioning the military aspects of it is a corrupt bit of reporting and the reporter should be fired. (or disconnected if it is a ChatBot.

Aircraft have very different constraints than cars. They are an order of magnitude harder to fly than cars are to drive. Those that qualify want and should get paid significant sums of money, restricting the supply to the top 5% of the population, minimum.

Worse, flying vehicles have to be inspected every 100 hours of flight time, most are done every 25 hours. 100 hours is every 2 weeks, 25 is twice a week.

Lots more aircraft in/around a populated area = terrorist threat. How many cities/towns will OK that?

Moreover, the time it takes to get to/from a heliport makes it very unlikely to save time - not unless they build a ton new heliports.

Not going to happen.

California has incredible wealthy, incredibly crime, incredible traffic, incredibly homeless problems, and losing an incredible amount of people every year.

80% of their issues came down to one single decision - to give everyone a single family home. This drove up the prices of real estate to a high degree but caused the traffic, homelessness, city taxes, and population loss. Not surprising that crime came with the homeless problem.

Why the city taxes went up? Cities make money per square foot. High population density is profitable for them, low density costs them money (for longer utilities/busses/trains, gas for city vehicles, more people to deal with the spread out issues, etc. etc. etc.) A 300 unit rental apartment building is profitable but 300 single family homes at the outskirts costs them more than it makes.

The problem is all those single family homes have owners that like it being worth $1 million. So they vote down condos/coops, apartments, multi-family homes, ADUs, etc. Scared of property values becoming the the 2nd highest in the nation (California's average value is greater than all other states AND the District of Columbia. I mean really - higher than a city?)

Creating a new city owned by the wealthy will never solve California's problem.

A law requiring all new housing to be at least 2 family homes will solve it in 5 years after implementation. Put new expensive condos in city centers and the traffic problem will also go away.

Democrats challenge Republicans in court then accept the court's ruling. Never once breaking the law.

Republicans challenge the Democrats in court, get laughed at for having no evidence and violating tons of court rules, hire hackers to break into election machines, riot, kill cops, and engage in a criminal conspiracy to present false electors.

Pretending that these things are similar demonstrates that you can not tell the difference between legal and illegal.

It is NOT about what you do, but how you do it. I am allowed to claim that you stole my shirt. I can sue you for theft. I am not allowed to hire people to break into your house and take my shirt because I think you stole it from me.

1) 6.3 growth? what propaganda mill have you be reading.
Read this: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/21...

2) I do not deny that China did REAL well 20 years ago. It even did reasonably well 5 years ago. That was when China built the craft that landed on the moon. But that was 3 years ago. Over the past 3 years, their growth has vanished.

3) China clamped down hard on everyone, particularly their tech guys, sending several of them to jail. Their stock market fell. The real estate industry discovered that selling second homes in cities that have less than 30% of the population living in their second homes makes no sense. Their population is aging. China has deflation. China has trade issues. They USED to be phenomenal growth case. Not anymore. China's middle class is dying.

4) China is never going to become the world's biggest economy.
They used a bureaucratic system that does a phenomenal job of copying other's advances. Bureaucracy does that. They ask what works well and agrees to do it. What it does not do well is innovation. They have copied everything they can, but can no longer do that as they have mostly caught up to the west. They are an also ran and will likely be that way forever.

5) How do I know that? Because there are two Chinas. One in Beijing and another in Taiwan. The Taiwan one makes the world's best computer chips. The Beijing one makes all the electronic devices that do not come with the world's best computer chips.

Ever since the 1970's, there were myths that the USA was losing it's position and that other countries were overtaking it.

For a while people thought Japan would take over, then later on China became the boogeyman. Someone even made this wierd commercial pretending to be the future where China was America's master.

Some decided that speaking Chinese would give you the same kind of benefits in the future that non-Americans currently get for speaking English. That is, being able to talk with the large, wealthy, powerful nation that has a disproportionate political power.

That myth has lost it's luster. With China's economic downturn, people no longer think that the US is doomed to become China's servant.

With India landing on the Moon, they have in many ways taken over China's old position as the up and coming nation. If India did not already have a large English speaking population, I suspect that college kids would now be told to learn Hindu.

Mainly because their opponents will talk about them violating the law and use it against them.

Also, they should outlaw the trading of stock options as well. But allow the purchase of mutual funds that are available to the general public. If they have no control at all and everyone else gains the same benefit, that is fair.

The reasons the judge doesn't mention it is that IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

It's the main reason juries do not convict police officers. They ignore the law because they think the "criminal' deserved it. Same thing happened inthe 50s and 60s when juries let white men go for murdering black people.

And it happens today (From this study: Black, Robert C. (1997â"1998), FIJA: Monkeywrenching the Justice System, 66 UMKC L. Rev., p. 11):

Juries acquit about 19% of the time when judges would convict. The study claimed about 1 in 5 of those acquitals were outright jury nullification. This does not counting the times they downgrade the charges.

Other studies have claimed that jury nullification happens in about 3-4% of the all criminal cases.

IT is NOT an automatic mistrial if a defendant brings it up, particularly if they are careful. In fact, the ninth court has determined that there is such a thing a valid jury nullification.

You are cynical and have falsely believed that juries are morons. They are not. They may not know the law, but they do now what justice is.

Any lawyer worth their salt would demand a jury trial and win.

While a judge might be willing to ignore the facts and go with a literal interpretation of the law, no jury would.

One of the main advantages of the US legal system is the right to a jury of your peers. It stops the government from doing stupid crap.

One of the main disadvantages is when the government decides you do not get a jury trial - for example immigration cases and civil asset forfeiture.

Same story all the time. When some want to ban and others disagree, TAX it.

Devote the tax to remediation while the mere presence of the tax discourages non-essential use of the item.

The summary did not say, but the article did clearly state that the financial institutions were UNDERESTIMATING the risk, not over-estimating the risk.

They were not accounting for secondary risks, including but not limited to migration, war, and increased chance of stronger natural disasters.

This is extremely important in a world where people deny science etc, some one could read this summary and think the banks were over-spending to account for non-existent risk, rather than underspending.

There are several reasons not to do this, among others that a slight dip in power will drop the ballast.

But they do have multiple safety mechanisms that can be operated without electricity to do this kind of thing. If they have hull integrity and air, they should be able to get to the surface.

The human tries to make money by telling the truth.

The bot tries to get investors by saying whatever they want to hear.

Not surprising that the bot gets funded more. What would be surprising is if the bot makes more money.

Cut off half the paragraph.
Basically anyone that thinks more than 5% of the homeless deserve it (for any reason) is an uncaring jerk.
Then the real answer is to give them free housing and base utilities, for less than we currently spend on them (tiny houses and studios condos not granite countertop homes).

Also, those couch surfing people? They usually end up on the streets. It's hard to cobble together friends based housing for more than 6 months. Easy for the first couple of months, but eventually it ends.

The most common reasons for homelessness in America are:
Illness,Sexual Abuse, Low intelligence/skills (no you do not get to insult people because they happen to be stupid. Everyone deserves a home, even those in the bottom percentile), and ,Low social skills.

Note, drugs are NOT on that list. Drugs happen after homeless, not before. But the inability to live in the modern world - whether because stupidity or being an asshole does not mean you deserve to be homeless.

Nowhere on the list is the desire to be homeless. That is less than 1%

Your post explicitedly demonstrates you are the uncarring jerk.

The idea that somehow, people (or some - implying many despite the real answer being FOR LESS THAN WE CURRENTLY SPEND on the homeless. The difference is we spend it on housing and utilities rather than cops, emergency room visits, jail and lawsuits. (Always makes me laugh when some shmuck is willing to arrest a homeless person putting them in four walls, bed, food, shower and guards, but won't give them a home without the guards)