The British already have a satellite constellation named after it. Not sure if that's some English irony right there.

That's some classic English understatement right there.

The challenge is that even if the United States, and more broadly its allies, comes to a consensus that AI applications for development should be stopped, the Chinese still pushing the envelope. Therefore, it becomes hard for US aligned nations to simply walk away and give such a large advantage to other nations - the arms race is already in motion. The only way to bring it to a stop is by mutually agreed, mutually verified treaty similar to how nuclear weapons proliferation was stemmed during the last century. That means not just the great powers who are pushing the envelope today, but a guarantee from other nations not to engage in military AI research. I think parties absolutely need to come together to try and stop the madness, but I'm pessimistic it will happen. You might be able to stop the overt things (ensure humans in the loop for any lethal actions), but I doubt governments are going to want to walk away from other military applications like data analysis and dissemination, electronic warfare, information warfare, etc.

They gave up good in pursuit of perfection, but ultimately fell short of both.

This was actually the subject of research done by economist Emma Harrington at the University of Virginia (an interview summary by NPR is here). They studied two teams of software developers in the same company, one where they were all colocated together and another where the developers were still within the same general location but scattered around the site (~10 minute walk from each other). They studied feedback that was formally inputed into the system, and noted that for the team not sitting together, senior developers were providing 20% less documented feedback to junior developers. When the teams went remote, that feedback dropped from 20% less to 50% less. The hypothesis is that some of those "gains" in productivity by senior employees working from home was because they essentially started providing less training and mentoring to junior employees. From the interview:

Historically, airline tickets are extremely cheap especially when you count the ultra-low cost carriers like RyanAir and Spirit. People keep harkening back to the "golden age" of air travel, forgetting that an economy ticket from those days is the equivalent of a first class fare today when adjusted for inflation.

Shareholders will pay significantly as well when the values of their portfolios get throttled because airlines lose revenue and earnings as passengers cut back on air travel due of increased prices.

The US is actually the last of the major global players to push back on Big Tech. Europe has aggressively deployed a wide range of consumer protections to try and reign in excesses. China has gone a step further, breaking one of its largest tech firms and publicly stripping down its CEO. Tech has peaked, and the US hammer is the last one to drop - when and how will determine whether Big Tech gets a soft landing or will fundamentally have to restructure for a new environment.

Or they enjoy the power fantasy of the Lion King, dreaming of when they will find their fascist leader to usurp the government and seize control of the savanna.

Agreed. If anything, given how few flights are impacted, it seems really more about cementing behaviors rather than changing them. That said, it's going to require some significant infrastructure or more painful changes if they want to impact the connecting flights numbers: like a convenient way to transition from a train station to an airport. Otherwise, you will still have people flying from those cities and connecting to Paris for long-haul routes.

There is pressure though because a lot of times, the cashier / barista / etc. is looking at you while you make that decision. It does put some psychological pressure even if they're not expecting anything.

The problem is that it's a hard practice to break in the United States. The number one push back comes from servers and bartenders themselves - at the right restaurants, tipping makes them so much more income than any strong wage, albeit at the expense of everyone else working at the restaurant. So for example, in Washington DC, servers and bartenders make $6 an hour. If tips fall short of local minimum wage (~$16), the restaurant has to make them whole. However, servers and bartenders can easily clear an average of $36 to $40 an hour with tips at a good restaurant. For restaurants, they can't match that in a regular wage, especially without raising wages across the restaurant to a similar level which would financially break them. Servers know this, so anytime any restaurant tries to break tipping, veteran servers and bartenders simply quit and go to another restaurant that still offers tipping. There were a few high profile failed attempts that reflect this.

For restaurant owners, its a collective action problem. No restaurant wants to be the guinea pig and do it first, risking the wrath of both their servers (loss of wages) and the public (for raising prices). So the only way they could do it is if a city outright bans tipping, forcing all restaurants to make adjustments.

Except practically its hard to do that given the waitlists for said high demand books. By the time you get one and then get locked out, you're probably still on the waitlist for others.

This is essentially how the no fines system works. You still have due dates, but when you check out a book and it becomes past-due, your library privileges are revoked until you either pay for a replacement or return the book. If you return the book or a replacement is paid for, and you can borrow again.

"I'm just an innocent blonde white girl tricked by that brown guy with a funny foreign name" defense at that. Or, as the SJW might call it, "white girl tears."