We've never seriously regulated headlights, it certainly won't start now. If someone else blinds you and you crash, how will you ever prove how that happened (assuming you survive)?

Some auto parts stores have the street legal lights right next to the "off-road use only lights", which doesn't help the situation either. With so many bulbs sold online though it really doesn't matter, people who want super-ultra-bright lights will still get them.

And this problem goes back decades. I remember in the 90s when some joker in a Toyota pickup had what I could only assume to be a pair of arc welders for headlights. He was way too close to the rear bumper of my Mustang on the freeway (my car at stock riding height) and I was so completely blinded by his light from behind me it was a miracle I didn't crash. I stood on my brakes and made him pass me but of course he thought the situation was too amusing to do so.

He put money into the companies he wanted to support, by purchasing parts of them. He could retract his money at any time by selling the shares. That is either an endorsement of what they are doing, or an endorsement of what they plan to do.

The majority of what Musk claims is not true. He's had at best a shaky relationship with reality for some time. He happily endorses and propagates - amongst other things - the false narrative that he launched Tesla. Don't count on his narrative of "sleeping in the factory" to actually mean anything beyond occasionally yelling at employees there and then leaving to go sleep in the nicest hotel in town.

I can't speak to all cases of "administrators", but I can very much speak to one case in higher education where I was employed for some time.

Where I worked, employees were grouped into three different bins, depending on their role. There were "faculty" (rather self-explanatory), "civil service" (mostly janitors, along with lab techs, some librarians, and other roles), and "professional and administrative (or P&A)". The P&A was often misconstrued in the public to be composed entirely of administrators, which was nowhere near correct, it had far more professionals - especially professional research staff which were largely non-faculty scientists with advanced degrees.

Even more so to counter your point, *nobody* in the P&A category were union. All the unionized workers were "civil service" - though lots of civil service were not unionized. The union couldn't have cared less about the count of administrators.

If you go in - as an adult - to a mass shooting event at a school, how do you expect to survive? The police are trying to stop the shooter and will reasonably expect that anyone who is not a student could potentially be a shooter. Police have mistaken cell phones for guns in other situations, don't expect to be exempt from that possibility in something as high stakes as a mass shooting.

If your kid is laying low and keeping quiet, their odds of survival are far better than if they are calling you on a phone.

I don't know if you're building some strange straw man argument here or if you're just out to waste my time with that, but I'll also point out that a kid on a phone is only going to be making noise and end up doing more to draw in the attention of a shooter. Smart phones in the hands of kids don't do anything to help this situation; I could just as easily ask if you're shilling for Samsung, Apple, or the phone companies in pretending otherwise.

Some people throw around the term "screen addiction" very casually but it is a very real thing and the kids that are suffering from it are facing a much greater hill to climb than some of us realize. It's not better because they grew up with screens in front of their faces at all times, in fact it's worse. Beyond the obvious social implications of screen addiction we have the issues they are having with day to day existence without screens. These kids need help, and our nations economy will soon depend on us getting it to them.

Do you not remember Columbine? The school was able to lock down before smart phones even existed. Or for that matter Sandy Hook? That was an elementary school; it's highly unlikely any kids there had smart phones but they were able to lock down as well. We don't need smart phones to protect students from mass shooters. More so, this applies to students and not teachers; teachers will still be able to communicate and coordinate.

The academics you want most for consulting are the ones from research universities. However, those academics generally work 80 hours weeks already just to keep their jobs.

I know this first hand. I was a postdoc at a major research university, at the time intending to follow the academic career track. This was after doing my PhD at another - albeit much smaller and less prestigious - public research university. What I saw as a postdoc while rubbing elbows with junior faculty really opened my eyes.

Junior faculty at major public research universities are working at least 80 hours a week. 40 hours go to grant writing, lab management, and departmental obligations. Another 20 goes to teaching. 10 goes to managing institutional requirements (including negotiations for how much they pay to their institution for space, utilities, etc - and consumption of those resources). Another 5 goes in to actual research. The last 5 goes to attending local seminars.

When a most junior (assistant professor) faculty member makes it to the next level they are still working 80 hours, but they're making slightly more money. Now they are putting more effort into making their pitch for tenure (if it exists at their institution), or looking at where they want to work next (if that's a better career path for them). If they ever make it from medium level (associate professor) to senior (professor) - and many never do - they still need work 80 hours a week but now they have a larger presence on campus.

At what time do we expect American faculty to have more time available for this?

Unfortunately right now there are a lot of people making careers out of doing exactly the opposite of those things. While one could hope those people would be replaced by AI - or even better be replaced by people who follow those principles - that does not seem to be priority right now.

Considering how much language has been morphing - often along political lines - to mean different things to different people, it would be great to have a single source that people could go to. Of course what we find though is that if someone of affiliation A points someone of affiliation B to a dictionary website, the person of affiliation B will tell them their source is wrong and brush them off. Finding one source that all people can trust is a challenge.

She only missed the memo because she was new to the game. Had it been directed by a more established CEO instead it would have been brushed under the rug. They always protect their own kind, and she wasn't (yet) one of them.

Just wait until we get to see how hard CEOs will pull to defend Elon when Tesla fails to turn in the earnings his bonus is dependent on.

The CEOs aren't spending their own money. If they somehow don't win the arms race, they can always look back and say they needed to spend more. If they can declare themselves winners, they will look brilliant and be able to demand huge pay raises from their companies. Even if they nearly drive their companies to bankruptcy on the matter, they'll have other execs from other companies to point to as examples of people who either did worse, or won by spending more.

It was a good time to be a CEO in January of this year. It's an even better time now.

I was a CWA member throughout grad school. It may be that they just put a lot more effort into the larger companies where their members were employed (think Verizon as one great example) but we didn't see much help from them as grad students. I remember one meeting my first year where we were reminded we could always ask for a union rep anytime we were talking with our PI, and that was about it.

These laws they are referring to, they are only fooling themselves when they pretend that they might apply to the richest people in the world. It doesn't matter how "clear" one might think trademark laws to be, when the other side can spend more on lawyers than the GDP of many small nations, you don't have a chance of winning.

All Mars trips that involve landing on Mars will be one way for the foreseeable future. We're likely 200 years away from being able to get someone back from Mars, and that's only if we find a fuel source there.