Ted Sturgeon, is that you?

"I'm always amazed at what non-programmers are impressed by. "
Mostly this is because you have a narrow view of your work and don't consider the needs of the people for whom you are actually producing that work.

"you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on"

Or maybe they are humans exhibiting verified human behavior. These creatures may be unfamiliar to you.

It has actually been shown that the amount a person will consume is affected by the size of the portions, regardless of the number of portions provided.

The post I was responding to was specifically referring to buying things at B&N because of the lower price, and failing to account for the time spent when doing so. In that case my value of my free time is irrelevant to AC's failure to account to count for the AC's value of the AC's free time.

Other people have been trained to consider their free time to have no value. There is nothing I could possibly want to buy a a B&N that could provide enough discount to offset the the time I would spend getting there.

"I don't find any period where anyone "erased" the MWP"

Obviously the climate change activists also erased the edit history. That's shows you just how far the conspiracy goes!

The Tenth Amendment does not say "explicitly" anywhere. In addition, Article One does contain the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

The point is that past a couple of weeks 80-hour work weeks are useless not just for you but for your employer as well. You are providing LESS productivity so it would really be in your employers interest to stop.

All things have a marginal utility. Either you are proposing a 168 hour workweek or we are just haggling about price.

"The judge DID strike down the rule. He then went on to explain that the reasoning the judge used was because it wasn't part of a formal rulemaking process."

The opening claim was that the judge said that the FAA was not permitted to make rules in this area while the judge was actually silent on that matter.
First paragraph of cited article: "A federal judge slapped down the FAA’s fine for a drone operator, saying there was no law banning the commercial use of small drones."
Third paragraph of the cited article "NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled Thursday that the policy notices the FAA issued as a basis for the ban weren’t enforceable because they hadn’t been written as part of a formal rulemaking process." This contradicts the claim from first paragraph that the judge said the FAA could not legally make any rules in this area.

"But it would be a mistake to then assume that if they HAD made it part of a formal rulemaking process, it would automatically be legal! "
It would also be a mistake to assume to assume that it would be automatically illegal, which was the claim.

"This is important: yesterday SCOTUS made it very clear that the FAA does not have authority to regulate things that are not specifically authorized by Congress and signed into law. Their CO2 regulations were part of a formal rulemaking process."

This in no way implies that ALL rulemaking by hte FAA is illegal, you you still have to demonstrate the the specific area of rulemaking has not been authorized. This has yet to be shown.

"What the law allows the FAA to do is to regulate navigable airspace [faa.gov]. "
You citation does not define navigable airspace, and does not even refer to any regulation of aircraft at all.

"It does not have authority over all the airspace in the U.S.!"
49 U.S. Code 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace (a) (1) "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."
 

"crashing into a... school playground"
This is the latest addition to Amazon Prime subscriptions. I ordered 3 playground crashes today at no additional cost.

The delivery by truck requires a licensed driver and an inspected vehicle.

Actually, what happened there is that the reporter didn't know what he was talking about and contradicted his opening statement in the 3rd paragraph.

Vernor Vinge, is that you?