Bullshit. I live in the western US and have regularly driven through some of the least-populated areas of the country, but I've never seen an area you can go 500 miles without encountering any infrastructure. You might be able to accomplish it if you take careful note of where the truck stops are and go out of your way to avoid them, but on any realistic route you'll encounter truck stops -- if not towns -- at least every 150 miles.

As for charging infrastructure, if you stay on the interstates I don't think there's anywhere in the country you can go more than 100 miles without finding a Tesla Supercharger. Those aren't designed for truck charging, but this demonstrates that building out the infrastructure isn't that hard.

They certainly seem to have completely missed Article I. You know, the part that says that the legislature makes the laws? Even if you think restricting AI regulation to the federal government is a good idea, the right way to do it isn't with an executive order to set up a DOJ task force aimed at litigating state AI regulations out of existence based on complex legal theories about interstate commerce. The right way is for Congress to pass a law barring states from regulating AI. This is simpler, cheaper and should invoke public debate about the issue, which is how things are supposed to be done in constitutional republics.

I don't even think Trump is taking this route because he and his advisors don't believe they have the votes for it. I think they're doing it this way because they don't even consider governing through legislation rather than through executive power. Granted that Congress is fairly dysfunctional, but they actually can and do make laws... and the way to fix the dysfunction is to work the system.

"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another." --Malcolm Reynolds

(Ironically applies well to Joss Whedon himself. Kind of wonder if one of the show writers was thinking about Joss when they wrote that...)

The only single-source point of failure is me.

Untrue. This derives from the GDPR and the GDPR requires informed consent for storage and processing of any PII. Cookies are not in the GDPR at all. They may be in directives, but only as examples.

Well, if you do not want basic human rights, that is, surprise!, a freedom you do not have. You get them even if you are dumb enough to not want them. For example, you cannot consent to be killed outside of very limited circumstances. And that is a good thing.

Newsflash: The "bureaucrats" did not chose any implementation. The GDPR does not mention any specific tech. There are no laws or regulations requiring any specific technology or implementation.

This is 100% on the web-tech industry which chose to select the most annoying implementation they could. They were in no way forced to do that. All that is required is that any form pf PII can only be stored and processed with informed consent and that behavior data is PII. And that is it. For most sides, they could have chosen to just not track users.

That is incorrect. These rules apply to anybody that does business with EU citizens or stores or processes data of EU citizens, even if that happens outside of the EU. Sure, if its is >99% non-EU citizens and just the occasional EU citizen in there and all business is in all aspects done outside of the EU and you never plan to ever do business in the EU, complaints will not be successful. But as soon as, say, an EU citizen can sign on to your website from the EU, you are affected.

What a load if insightless nonsense. The basis of all this happens to be Human Rights. That the EU does not (unlike the US) ignore those is a good thing.

No. The EU did nothing of the sort. The GDPR only (!) states that behavior data is PII and that storing and processing of PII requires informed consent. Period. The current mess is 100% on the web-tech makers. Specific technologies (like cookies) are not even mentioned in the GDPR. They can show up in legal decisions as to whether a specific technology fulfills the GDPR requirements, but that is it. The EU has made zero specific tech requirements.

The proposed changes are simply allowing more generic consent with less information. That is the only change here. And it is a bad change for the users because it removes control from them.

I think Microsoft never gets enough blame for all the crap they do. They basically only do not fuck up things for the user when they overlook something.

You are mistaken. The GDPR does not even mentions cookies or any other specific technology. It merely requires informed consent for any PII storage or processing. The implementation that so annoys you is in 100% on web-tech makers. In other words, the industry failed to find a good solution for following the law. That is not the fault of the law. Good solutions would have been entirely possible. My take is the current solution was selected to try to coerce EU lawmakers.

You really have not looked at the facts, have you? The thing is, the GDPR does not even mention cookies or any other specific tech. It simply states that tracking data for user behavior is PII and storage and processing of PII requires informed consent and must be default-off.

This is really simple: Default-deny is the law. So a browser must be delivered with all site permissions off. Them when a site is visited that wants to track, the user gets asked.

Indeed. And simple things that cannot really be used for tracking are allowed. The GDPR only states that tracking data is PII and PII can only be stored or processed with informed consent. Most session-local cookies are entirely unproblematic. Most site-specific cookies are unproblematic. The problem is 3rd party cookies and long-term persistent cookies.