Which would be fine, except the DC FRZ (flight restriction zone) is a 30-mile circle around the Capital within which it is illegal to fly ANY remote control device of any kind. Includes "drones" as well as those toy RC helicopters at the mall kiosks, and the sort of RC planes that people have been flying around for many decades. Some tourist flying a quad in DC is in for a very rude awakening, as has already happened.

Wouldn't matter. Do you understand how small the White House grounds are, and how fast even a modest quad can fly when it means business? I've got one that can do over 40mph. That would cover the distance from the sidewalk in front of the White House to the middle of the typical speech-giving area of the Rose Garden in well under 8 seconds. A drone flying waypoints - with no need for a human controller nearby or watching - could be moving that fast well before it gets to the White House fence, and be coming in 200' overhead, be above a high-profile press event in seconds, cut power and drop like a stone spewing a mist of cesium or a nice cloud of serin or laden with a nice little brick of C4, and it would be on the ground in the middle of that speech/ceremony so fast you'd have no ability to do something about it. Except maybe light it up with some sort of automated buckshot gatling gun, right in the middle of a busy urban area.

This is going to result in a lot more events being held indoors.

I don't think that would work. After 9/11, the coverage showed unbroken windows removed from the rubble at the pentagon. The windows were designed to withstand a hit from any man-portable weapon system. This included the most powerful sniper weapons, as well as RPGs. I'm assuming the White House is no worse than the pentagon, but I didn't build either.

And that was sworn in the trial testimony? Or did they say that everywhere except where they had to swear that was the truth?

So we shouldn't place control on non-LOS 50+ lb drones because there exist 2 lb LOS-only drones? I can put enough C4 on a 2 lb drone to cause problems. The glass on the White House is designed to stop a .50 cal armor piercing sniper bullet. If you wanted to shoot the president, you'd be better off shooting through the wall. But a pound or two of C4 on a small drone, landing at the base of the wall may damage it enough for a clear shot, or dislodge one of the supremely heavy windows. Though I suspect that wouldn't work, for other reasons.

My phone charge does 5A at 5V without an issue, and my laptop doing 5A at 20V does so over tiny wires.

You answer the question, then immediately forget the answer. You have AC at 240 (sigh, 110, if you must) and have outlets in some strategic areas (kitchens and for major appliances), and 12V or 48V everywhere else.

I think we should have a 48V internal wiring standard, with some 240V appliance plugs, for vacuums, refrigerators, washers and driers, and such. The dual-standard will complicate things slightly, but result in a large overall savings, as wall-warts are eliminated, and all their waste.

More sense is 240 AC for appliances, and 12V or 48V for everything else. DC-DC stepping in the wall jack isn't hard. So you go to the jack at 48V, and there to 5V for your wall-wart voltages. With some for 12V or 48V for higher powered things.

If it were me, I'd design a mechanical switch in the plug that activated the circuit, so it would have zero loss when not used, unlike current wall warts. We use 110 VAC because it's what we've always used, not because it's a good voltage or current type.

You can't build a net so high that someone can't fly over.
It's hard to build a net that can't be easily cut through.
It's hard to build a net that doesn't destroy the view.

Some don't put out any. an RC drone will put out trivial spurious emissions. Only the live-camera type would be sending anything. So if you rely on RF for drone detection, there will be many ways around it.

That is true, I am wasting my time, since you don't even understand what you are saying, you think there is a consensus, but you don't know what that consensus is.

If you understood what there is consensus on, then you would be more interesting to talk to. Instead you're just ignorant to talk to.

Anyone who claims that there is consensus of 97%, as if that means something, doesn't understand what the consensus is.

You are one of those people.

If you have a CS degree from a decent university, you're competing with entry-level grads who just barely took an eight-week-course in programming from some coding bootcamp.

Somehow those guys manage to find jobs, and a CS degree is already more skilled than them.

The consensus isn't what you think it is. That is, if you ask scientists, "should we do everything possible to stop global warming now" or "will global warming cause millions of deaths in the next century," you will not get anywhere near 97%.

Gene sequencing is not open to interpretation, thus never gets it wrong. Gene testing is not science.