China wanted to lead on science, and made the effort. Now that's paying off, and relatively fast as well it seems. China sent out promising students to foreign universities, to return with valuable learning. They court scientists to move to China, and fund a lot of research. And they have a decent school system with highly motivated students. They have plans and policies in place that work.

What does the West have? Science is beginning to have a bad name here. They tell you you're a sucker if you take a STEM major in college, except perhaps if you study to be a doctor or a dentist, or "something something AI". You're even dumber if you actually pursue a career in academia. Meanwhile we have New Math (a US thing, I know, but here in Europe schooling in mathematics is just as dire), or whatever new nonsense they cooked up. In my country, they are again lowering the nr. of hours per week spent on STEM subjects in high school. More focus on humanities and civics... as they say: "teaching children to be good citizens". Dumb AF, but... good citizens, sure. Taught to challenge everything, and not given the tools or knowledge to do so effectively. One in three kids aged 15 here is functionally analphabetic. Because even reading comprehension and accurate spelling are now optional. Chinese kids work and study hard, ours are taught that being on time is a "white construct", and that STEM education needs to be "decolonized".

No, we're not going to catch up with China. Unless we change our focus.

Plus on many chains, the transaction fee is significant.

That's what the second bill is for, apparently. Isn't this already covered in US laws though? Here in the Netherlands we have had "portrait rights" for over a century, basically it means that you have a say in how your likeness is being used in publications, and you can forbid publication if you have a good reason. Reasons include protecting one's reputation, but also the use of a famous person's likeness without their permission. The law also protects persons after their death, but only for a period of 10 years. Because of AI, they are now considering extending that period.

Why would you want to require humans be used in the creation of media? Should we ban robots in factories as well?

I disagree, I am glad that there are ways to make money with or on the internet, and that there are many useful services available, either paid, or paid for by ads. Sure, there's a lot of slop, nefarious data harvesting, or downright fraud, but with that comes a lot of good as well. Well beyond the things at our disposal back when it was still largely a thing of academia.

To be fair: I don't think it is unreasonable to show a notification to make drivers aware of this offer. But it most certainly should not appear when driving, or get in the way. I would be okay with it if the screen showed a simple message: "Hey, you can use SiriusXM for 2 weeks, on us", when starting the car, and only once.

Other than that I would want an anti-enshittification law: the number and timing of ads on owned equipment and any online servces required to enjoy the equipment, and the available functions on that equipment or associated services, shall not significantly change after the service or equipment is purchased, unless a full refund is offered.

Hell no. In fact California ought to sue the FDA for not banning these dangerous foods. And residents should sue the state of California for not suing the NDA sooner. Then the FDA can sue universities for not doing timely research on this, and the universities can sue the food manufacturers. It's lawsuits all the way down.

My (otherwise excellent) network provider to this day does not support IPv6

Imagine you're responsible for the switch, and it goes tits up... if you switched to Google, it's on them. If you switched to LibreOffice, it's on you.

Bad idea, over longer distances, flying is cleaner than driving. In some cases flying is cleaner than taking the train (e.g. high speed trains powered by coal-fired plants). Take-off and landing burns a crapload of fuel, but airplanes are surprisingly economical when cruising.

Legit red teams find holes, they don't cause damage.

Smart. Instead of charging each customer an additional $0.04 per unit, or even eating those costs ($600k, in other word chump change), they use it as an excuse to upsell their product line.

The article states that they don't know the cause. They found a correlation between ultraprocessed foods and poor health, but they don't know what exactly in those foods causes the negative effects. They also cite scientists who criticize the definition, as some foods considered to be healthy are in the ultraprocessed category. So the article addresses both of your concerns.

The new law (according to the article) still allows the re-sale of tickets, but not for more than the original price.

Whichever way you spin it, it's a scam. Perhaps fraud even, though I don't know about the legalities around setting up these kinds of funds.