Can anybody say what this app does (other than report your GPS location)? Does it do anything you can't do with a web browser and going to .gov web sites?

It’s obvious the criteria is going to be that all answers the AI gives are "not woke". This has absolutely nothing to do with safety, it is censorship.

He is suggesting an asset tax, but you can evade it by not using the asset as collateral for a loan.

I would think the main threat is from fooling users into running some downloaded executable code.

You can't call those e-bikes either

No. A moped is NOT an e-bike.

A lot of devious people are desperately trying to call mopeds "e bikes" because they want to outlaw e bikes (and bikes of all kinds eventually). Don't fall into the trap.

Most importantly, a motorcycle (or moped) MUST be in the traffic lanes. It is not allowed in the bike lanes or on the sidewalks.

The problem is that car drivers hate slow motorcycles in their lane. So they will lie in any way they can, in particular calling these things "e bikes", because the only solution that appeals to them is to BAN BAN BAN!!!! If they could get rid of the motorcycles they would jump at the chance to do so too.

The sidewalk is allowed if there is no safe alternative (ie no bike lane).

I'm using an e-bike that absolutely will not go faster than 15 mph. I suspect it is badly designed as even trying to pedal faster does not work, there is enormous drag as though the motor refuses to spin faster than that (it will roll downhill at a higher speed). However that is certainly fast enough for my commute which is 3 miles each direction.

So I agree that it is a fine cutoff speed. Anything faster is a moped or motorcycle, they absolutely should be legal but you have to ride them on the street and have a license and insurance. Personally I think it is ok if the cutoff speed is more like 20mph but 15mph is fine.

No. Classify them as mopeds (since that is what they are). You can ride a moped on the street, but you have to have a license and insurance. "e-bikes" are SLOW, which means they can go in the bike lane, or on the sidewalk if there is no usable bike lane, and there are much fewer requirements.

The problem is car drivers HATE small motorcycles since they get stuck behind them. So they all REFUSE to call these things anything other than "e bikes" and their only solution is BAN BAN BAN!!!

No e-bike has spontaneously caused an accident, you know. What a stupid argument.

Last I checked you needed a driver's license to operate a Rental truck.

In the "Cooling Tower" test, is it known that there is a solution?

Switzerland is already 1/3 French, 1/3 German, and 1/3 Italian

Everyone wants roads near their house. If you don't have a road going to your house then your house is worthless. Once the government has a right of way for a road, expanding the road might be expensive, but it doesn't get the whole community involved in a series of lawsuits.

The only people that want to live near the train tracks, on the other hand, are the people out in the middle of the California desert that would love to have a way to easily get to the parts of California that aren't a wasteland. In the nice parts of California, every home owner within visual distance of the proposed route has hired a lawyer and vowed to fight the tracks to the death.

This means that California has built a tiny bit of tracks out in the middle of nowhere (near Bakersfield but not in Bakersfield). It also means that every single foot from this point on is likely to get even more astronomically expensive. The homeowners involved know that houses that are far enough away from the tracks so that their home value doesn't plummet are going to get a windfall as their prime real estate will become even more valuable with decent public transit. The rail system is going to be a serious amenity eventually. The homeowners near the tracks, on the other hand, are going to see a serious drop to their net worth. Everyone in California wants more light rail, but only if it doesn't go through their neighborhood.

It could easily be that California real estate is simply too expensive in this day and age for something like this to be built.

I agree, Newsome does seem to be practicing to be an anti-Trump. Anything he suggests seems to be chosen based on "how mad will it make Trump/republicans". Not on "is it a good idea" or even "does the left like this idea".
His likely replacement (Steyer) is also wading into this territory, most likely because it appears to be a way to win.