Noise! So much noise! Therefore, it must be a good car and more importantly, I must be a good driver. MORE NOISE!

It's a car, not a guitar. How misdirected must one be to think the noise of a car's engine has any relation to driving? And not even that. It's not even the noise of the engine. It's the noise of the exhaust. There is a shade of utility in hearing the engine, to determine its speed, because that is actually relevant to driving, but it does not need to be a noise that is even heard outside the car.

You need things that are powered by BATTERIES if nuclear power (or any other type of electricity) is going to fix the climate problems.

You have posted anti-battery propaganda.

Therefore I conclude you actually don't care one bit about nuclear power and are just trying to be a nay-sayer. Good day.

I do believe "authentic" watermarks would help a lot. They will have to be locked to a lot of details about the file, you will not be able to color correct, resize, crop, or change the compression method. Probably allow cutting movies between frames however. Some one-way writing of the watermark is put into the camera, with the decoding key/result added to a database that does anything it can to insure only actual cameras are registered.

Watermarks people want to be remove can be made much harder by making the test for the watermark much more expensive, slow, and/or locked down so only authorized users can run it. Videos detected with the watermark are remembered so any similar-enough video also acts like it has the watermark, even if it has been manipulated enough to remove it. It also has to be very hard to create the watermark by anybody other than the registered creator so people can't use this to reject real videos.

Yes I think it is a requirement that the work have non-zero value. It's obvious that having a bunch of people standing around watching reduces crime, so that has non-zero value. I'm not sure what to do about the art to make sure its value is non-zero, possibly proof that people collect and keep it, or that organizations decide to display it.

Most laws like this require the average sound level to match, not the peak sound level. For precisely the reason you are talking about.

Because the improvement to society is not linear with the amount of money being given away.

Or did you think you had something insightful to say?

Most of your argument is spot-on, however while Communism is about "preventing private business", Socialism means exactly what you are describing (government doing business and buying stuff). So you are arguing for Socialism.

Most Basic Income proposals replace Welfare entirely.

I think there is some merit to an idea that there is Basic Income, but you can't get it unless you "do something". Even if that something is create art that nobody wants. This makes the income more valuable to the receiver because they "worked" for it.

I generally thought everybody who wanted to could be hired as a security guard, to patrol the streets and call in anything suspicious they see, and be "paid" with Basic Income (many times more than anybody would actually pay for their security guard service). This I think would make the receivers better behaved, keep them busy, and as a bonus be much much cheaper than Trump's idea of paying military members to do this. There are details to be worked out, but they would probably be tracked with their phones to make sure they really are patrolling, and there would be very serious penalties for collaborating with criminals.

But art also works, provided we can come up with some way to make sure they really are making art. If they are good enough they could also sell the art for additional income.

Another idea along the same line is everybody is given housing, if they want to use it (probably along with a requirement that they are actually in the housing more that 51% of the nights). But the housing is not really free, it is deducted from the basic income. This makes the housing much more "valuable" to the user and less likely to be trashed. The deduction would again be far less than what it actually costs to house them, it just has to be non-zero.

I must be really out of touch. I have never heard of this guy, or his channel name, until now. And I'm on YouTube and TikTok daily...

The GGP is clearly talking about trains, not electrified roads, and next one was trying to snarkily ask if we need to build a train to every door in an attempt to claim they don't work. I (who is not European btw) tried to point out how stupid this was because you can use another form of transportation to reach the rail head, without the strange idea that you must use that form of transportation for the entire trip. I suppose I should have mentioned airports to try to get the idea through your thick skulls.

Though electrified roads using induction recharging are obviously stupid, even they would not need to be built all the way to everybody's door. The car is capable of travelling some distance off of them, so just like train stations and airports the grid can be way smaller than everybody's house.

There is a wonderful invention called a "parking lot" which removes the needs to build rails to your door. You might want to check into it. Europeans seem to have figured them out.

Rails are pretty much a requirement for recharging while moving. But it does seem like a mechanical device that is below a parked car would work well for recharging stationary cars.

I am wondering if "hybrid" trains would be a good idea though. They would have sufficient batteries to travel a few miles, and be recharged when there is an overhead wire. This could reduce the cost and aestetics problems of overhead wires quite a lot, I think. It would be much closer to the "recharge while moving" idea as well.

Every sentence in that overview says that "innovation" is and only is "laying off workers".

To make something that small requires a level of integration that is not conducive to repair. Using connectors, cases that can somehow open or come apart (but not coming apart too easily so they aren't actually prone to breaking more often), etc, is not something that is practical in the first place.

My grandfather used to repair CBs and amateur radio equipment back in the 70s. Then everything was comprised of discrete components (IE each component, like a transistor, capacitor, diode, etc was a separate thing), and they were soldered onto a circuit board and each component could be replaced. However you would never repair an individual component, like somehow opening a transistor and fixing it internally - you had to replace it. At some level you have that tiniest discrete part that is either good or bad, and gets replaced when it fails.

Then when ICs came into existence, and allowed the insane miniaturization we enjoy today, multiples of those discrete components were packaged together into one "black box" that was impossible to repair. So then instead of replacing an off-the-shelf transistor easily and cheaply, you had to obtain the correct IC, which was proprietary and cost a fortune.

Anyway my point is that incredible miniaturization, which the iPods are certain a pinnacle of and state-of-the-art, come with a price, which is they get engineered as a discrete component that cannot be replaced or repaired.

I'm not defending Apple here, and I don't even own a pair of Airpods. I'm just saying that it's zero surprise that something that tightly integrated and miniaturized can't be repaired.

I'm pretty certain it has to be flown.