Which clearly are airplanes and any pilot would identify them as such.

And: they can not do any fancy maneuvers people are talking about or which we can see in the clips.

So it seems we agree :D

All your points are stupid.
As the public has nothing to do with "(taxes, time of the courts / judges that could be spent on other cases, etc.),"
The parties going to court pay for that.

No, it proves that the idea already existed and therefore the public gains nothing from the grant of the patent.
That is not the goal of the patent system. The goal is that the inventor can exploit his idea alone for a limited time.
Of course once the higher goal was: he would license it for a reasonable fee, and hence would help competitors into the ever growing market of commodities they can sell together to the mundane. And?
That never happened and never worked. And unless patents are officially auctioned or granted automatically to "infringers" and can not be denied to be used by the holder of the patent: nothing will ever promote the idea of "public gains".

Hint: unless the government rips the patent out of the hands of the holder, NO ONE CAN USE the invention, unless the holder grants a license. WHICH BASICALLY NEVER HAPPENS!!!

Same result.

There is some extra force, where do not know about where it comes from.

If it was gravity itself, then it would be pretty odd, as would kind of randomly be different at different places.

Are you silly or just stupid?

If they would get a bonus in cash: it would all be taxed right away.

If they get it in shares, it is taxed when the shares are sold, or not at all, if the shares are hold long enough.

No idea what your definition of a bonus is, though.

You are "covered by the union" if you are member of the union.

whole point of a union is to operate adversarially against the executives.
Nope, against the owners of the company. And usually it is not about against but about sharing or work conditions.

In the case of BT, from reading the literature they sent, this seems to be the exact scenario they support. I think they are basically doing something equivalent to ISDN over IP in the background and thus avoiding almost all problems of incompatibility.

What if the people are disabled so you get support from the state to employ them?

I'm not sure I disagree. I think what you are saying is more or less what I wanted to say, just with more specific detail. I am, however, assuming that somewhere out there are investors who haven't been following Musk in detail.

This clearly needs some out of the box thinking. An idea. How about we put a member of Waymo staff in the vehicle who can see even when network coverage is out and can halt the vehicle? You could even give them a set of local controls, duplicating the ones the remote staff use so that if the remote staff can't respond to a problem they can just take over and keep the vehicle able to move. You'd call them an "engineer" like in a train or a "captain" like in a ship.

BT in the UK is getting rid of its last real POTs customers by offering VOIP with power backup. They can even install a copper to fiber conversion in the DSLAM to make it work, in which case they maintain the last mile copper but nothing else. AT&T could find better (defined as more independent of the wireless network and less subject to collapse during emergencies) solutions than wireless if they wanted.

The crucial thing is some sort of physically connected, no wireless, connectivity and that there needs to be proper UPS and generator all the way back to the exchange. DSL over copper can be fine, VOIP over Cable TV could theoretically work. Satellite or 5G mobile is not the same. In real life that probably means that FTTH is easier in most cases. The little bit of flexibility of allowing copper for places where nothing else has been laid and its difficult to lay new lines can make a big difference to the costs.

Unfortunately not. The whole point of this story is that SpaceX looks like a reasonably sure bet on space and the military industrial complex (which wants/needs SpaceX's launch capability). However, in fact it's a bet on Elon Musk's ability to deliver AI this time, having failed already in Tesla and OpenAI. He's seemingly let his ego get ahead of himself and forgotten that Tesla, SpaceX and his other success were due to good engineers.

If the AI can code the stuff you prompt it for: it creates the same code a human had, based on the code the AI is trained with. So: the maintenance is the same.

And: you do not maintain AI created code manually. You tell it what is wrong and let the AI fix it.

Are you stupid or what?

No one who has any clue is going to let an AI produce 30kLOC code, and then fixes the problems by hand. That would be utterly idiotic.

A) you do not know which apps are made by or with AI
B) you are not even looking ...

If you are not even looking, how the funk do you think to know which apps are made with AI or by AI?