Why would it?

The FAA could make the fee schedule in a way that encourages whatever behaviors congress sets out as desirable in its charters if it were made more independent. Nothing would stop them from say charging higher fees to file a flit plan for a cargo plan vs one with commercial passengers. No reason they can't do that even on a per source or destination airport basis. Want to fly cargo into LAX - $$$$$ but if you land it in some less busy airport a couple hours away in the desert its only $. Where a passenger flight plan with an LAX terminus might only be $$.

They can similarly drive more or less revenue for certification of aircraft. Maybe domestically manufactured craft get cheap certs, and AirBus gets bent over the counter and thoroughly reamed. Tons of opportunities and lots of potential stability improvements if you make it a little bit more removed from the executive branch, without an need for your basic plane fare to change a much. It would just be one hand giveth the other taketh.

If that is true, and I am not saying it isn't then everyone will pay for it anyway. It will show up in the cost of products etc.

The FAA and everyone who flies, registers an aircraft, etc already interact directly. It would not even be inefficient to just make the FAA operate more like the post office, a government sponsored by not directly funded agency. It will insulate it from things like Finding Spats and shutdowns.

Actually turning the skies into a toll road seems like a pretty smart move.

The financial bullshit started long before 2008; it just took that long for the system to break. Bill Clinton removed a lot of the rules governing investment banking being separate from the S&L world.

Of course Republic Congress enacted the repeal; but that was bipartisan 343-86...

Hey no need to let facts get in the way of good story right, much more fun to just blame the other guy because calendar happened to roll over at the right time, that low-information-voters (also know as Democrats) will be easily suckered.

No but the Senate makes its own rules, and one of those rules is a tradition of unlimited debate. Until there are no objectors or a super majority agree the discussion should be terminated, legislation cannot be voted on.

For decades now minority parities have leveraged this to block the bodies business when it is doing something they don't like.

It is possible for the majority to simple 'change the rules' but nobody really wants to do that because they know the shoe will be on the other foot in another election cycle or two and don't want be railroaded when its there turn.

So the 60 vote majority requirement persists, as removing it is basically a mutually assured destruction situation, that will hold until one party feels they are certain to have a sustained comfortable majority going forward - I expect. The moment that happens and if said party has anything hovering right around that 60 mark which could become 59 or whatever the rule will be eliminated so fast your head will spin - I also expect.

The typical increase when the enhanced subsidies go away is like $150 a month. You act like it is apocalyptic but it is anything but..Green New Deal driven inflation cost these people more. Hell Cash for Clunckers probably drove up their annual transportation costs more then these premium supports expiring do!

Except you're lying. 'illegal immigrants' are defined as far as the ACA is concerned as anyone without a legal status. Never mind if that status was legally conferred or if it was perhaps granted by executive fiat, to include any kind of parole or programs like DACA invented out of thin air cloth..

Reality is lots of money is in fact going to people who are eligible for deportation..and who never (if past administrations had followed the law) be conferred any kind of status to begin with.

They (the GOP Lead House) passed CR to fund the government. A CR mind you that would have kept Biden era funding levels. Trump (The Executive) for his part seems entirely willing to sing that CR if it makes it to hist desk. The Senate (GOP lead) has repeatedly shown the raw votes are there pass the CR.

A minority party (Democrats) have enough Senate votes to use the Senate's parliamentary procedures to prevent the CR from getting an up or down vote. Mind you Appropriations bills are constitutionally speaking supposed to be written in the House, the Senate real legitimate role there is mostly one of executing veto power.

So yes the GOP has all three branches, elections are supposed to have consequences, the GOP is ENTITLED to implement its policy choices. At least when the GOP triggered shutdowns they had a majority in at least one legislative body.. This is pure hostage taking. The suggestion Democrats are not the ones clearly in the wrong here is just asinine. Win back a legislative body in 26 or 28, and if there is another shutdown then and only then can you blame the GOP for not being willing to negotiate.

China IS bad! Tiananmen Square massacre. Enslavement of Tibet. Uighur genocide. Constantly threatening to invade Taiwan. One-party rule, just like in California. Check out the youtube channel Laowhy86, he gives constant updates of just how bad it is over there.

Someone might have said all the same things about the space race.. They'd have been mostly wrong. At least for some span of generations along the axis marked time.

Yes the USA might be matched or eclipsed in 'space' technology in the near future, and maybe already is. In the mean time we are still enjoying huge technical dividends and current economic receipts via Space-X etc.

Over the past two generations we enjoyed a clear advantage in the cold war, and enjoyed a lot of national and even global security. We did not have to make morally reprehensible culturally destructive choices like building giant domesday end the whole world bombs, or as many bombs because we knew our ICBMs would get off the ground and put their payloads on target!

  As to your final thought, there may not be a finish line. There is an evolution happening, the Space Age order giving way to a information age order, and positioning ourselves in it is exactly what we are trying to do. Finish line or no there will absolutely be a next plateau, the question is who gets best position on it.

Your post is a lot of nonsense. AI is probably a bubble and driven by the notion that there will be broad productivity across industry that is likely to never materialize, that much is true.

However, there is also the possibility that it will be an inflection point that rapidly advances material science, bio-science, and information sciences.

In our largely 'information economy' you know since we already outsourced a huge portion of the production of actual goods, the consequences of being left behind in those areas are very possibly the difference between a second 'American Century' and slow decline and collapse.

In sort we maybe can't afford AI, but we can't afford to not to either. The most critical thing is going to be not regulating what people do with AI; but controlling the market contagion when it does not produce the short term results and the bubble bursts. That much will happen. The problem there is how to do it without also choking off the investment to fund it all. Not many clear policy options for that.

Passing so resolutions not laws that simply say the government will not be bailing out organizations or individuals that experience AI investment related losses could maybe prevent more growth of the systemic risk that NVIDIA, OpenAI, hyperscalers, and data-center developers all with hands in each other pockets already represents. The VCs that want to be big and possible win big still can, Vanguard won't be so pressured to bet as big with your 401k...

Right we are talking about some ip cameras and old windows box with some hard disks and winforms ui built on windows video to do mpeg playback most likely.

Assuming its on restricted network and the cameras have access lists that only let the server really talk to them. I don't see this issue. I mean shit how old was the microcontroller code on the slow scan recorders the current system probably replaced?

obvious the controls around a purpose built special use system like this were *also lacking* but I can't really see a good reason that CCTV-system from ~20 years ago inherently needs to be replaced.

Let's be real too about the advantages that exist in the current generation of this technology, it is ML enhanced stuff that does face/gait recognition and maybe some object identification (looking for guns and gun shaped lumps). If they deployed this things everyone would be screaming "muh privacy in the super public national museum" or "that's profiling' and similar.

"Creators" just need to learn to make content for the media they are actually working in. More people than ever consume media on the 'mid-size' screen, TVs in the 32-65in class.

They are not going to the cinema to see your movie, and even when they do, it won't be on file, it well a 4k (or more) digital projector that is brighter than ever (or could be).

Film was the media movies were made in and they people making them learned to work with it to achieve good artistic results. Low frame-rates, single exposure for the entire image, single focus chosen by the camera operator not where the ultimate view might wish to look, single focal range, are all characteristics of film. That is all they are though, characteristics that go with that media, they are not virtues that need to be replicated on other media.

A real actually talented group of folks making a movie would consider the modern screen characteristics its going to be viewed on and would find a way to make some that looks really good, and is joy to watch on/in that media. If painter switched from water color to oil and refused to make any other stylistic changes, we would not entertain their insistence the problem is with the paints and canvass, at least not for long.

 

I expect that is what this is really about. Amazon wants to watch you shop and Amazon wants to influence how you shop by the order it presents results to you, what related items it shows you, various pricing signals, etc.

All that breaks down if some AI agent is sifting the results Amazon returns. The lose the opportunity to gauge your real interest by how long you linger on a product page, they lose the opportunity to cross sell you, they can't try out A/B strategies on you if AI is doing your shopping.

Exactly nobody in online retail wants bots scraping their site. Amazon's objections are unsurprising but what I am more surprised at is they have not simply implemented some better anti-bot detection that can spot Perplexity and just make it not work.

ISIS is just Al-Qaeda remnants and offshoots with more pragmatic / regionally focused leadership. Al-Qaeda for its part still exists as well and is still quite active, still quite a threat in places like Mali even now.

Sooner or later their would have been some kinda of coup against OBL's leadership or he would have evolved toward a more ISIS like agenda to keep the movement alive.

Our post 9/11 policy certainly changed the names in the terrorist recruitment videos and likely moved the hotspots from where they might have been to places like Syria and Lybia, but I think the idea we created the conditions needed for ISIS is not really true.

We kicked a bees nest but the swarm was already there.

As to Syria and al-Sharaa; frankly there is zero real evidence he will be any less tyrannical than Assad is and Trump's hosting him is either entirely premature out of his desire to be seen as the great global peace maker, or is a jab at Putin who isn't cooperating on Trump's Ukraine agenda. Either way I predict it will be regrettable and likely embarrassing moment in US foreign policy.

I think the real answer is enough leadership recognized that controlling Afghanistan would likely be impossible.

Nationalist pride prevented any kind of public admission that the lessons of history also apply to the USA however. I think there was a real and sincere desire thought to get OBL and related terrorist leadership. That was a problem because it would mean they'd likely be able to dodge around mountain regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (a nominally ally) indefinitely.

The 'solution' was then to try to draw them out. With Pakistan and Saudi Arabia off the list for reasons of economy and preservation of faith in ally-ship, we needed another target. That left Iraq and Iran as logical options where we could 'invent' plausible cause for hostilities. Iraq looked better because it seems like they were less capable (we already more or less had air superiority).

I also think it was out of effort to preserve that international order and system of rules. The alternative was going to be to ignore national boarder and operate likely without consent inside middle eastern nations. They could never give consent for political reasons. Did it work, I think looking in the rear view mirror the answer has to be partly, but not near as well as hoped.