Pretty sure he meant 2 1/2 feet thick. I had the same thought when I saw it, but the poster just mis-typed.

That sounds awesome. Do you have any references for that? I tried just now, but am not getting any hits on that from Google.

IIRC, Joby opened a school for pilots a year ago. I don't think they wouldn't have not thought of that.

I hope that some of your questions point out that there may be 2 or even 3 distinct things wrong with you. As a few decades in my industry have shown, some of the most intractable problems are actually multiple problems that affect each other - once we identified that, things got a whole lot easier.

It is rare for multiple things to go kerfluey (that's the technical term) at once, but it does happen.

Good luck! Hope you get past it.

To be fair to Pelosi, that's not a high bar to clear. I'm no genius investor by any means (I make plenty of missteps), but even I make most professional investors look like amateurs.

Seriously though, this is something of a gray area:

"Yes, states can regulate areas already regulated by the federal government, provided the state regulation does not conflict with federal law. Under the Constitutionâ(TM)s Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedence, but states often share concurrent powers (e.g., taxation) or set stricter standards than the federal minimum.

Key points on state vs. federal regulation:
1) Preemption: If a federal law conflicts with a state law, the federal law overrides (preempts) the state law.

2)Stricter State Standards: States can often impose stricter regulations, such as higher minimum wages, stricter environmental standards, or stricter gun laws, than federal regulations.

3) Areas of Sole Federal Authority: States generally cannot regulate areas designated strictly for the federal government, such as foreign policy, interstate commerce, or declaring war.

4) Dual Regulatory Systems: In many areas, such as banking or environmental protection, both state and federal agencies regulate simultaneously, with federal rules acting as a floor.

If a state law is deemed to conflict with federal law, the state law may be deemed unconstitutional or inapplicable. "
2) and 4) above may be the best bet (pun intended) for pushing the courts - NY may not be able to ban prediction markets, but may be able to tax them at the same rate (total coincidence!) as those that provide gambling. Also, NY may regulate prediction markets within the state to enforce a 21 year old minimum age to use them.

I could see one or both of those making it through. Outright banning, maybe not because of 1) above. I see 3) as being pretty hard to win by, for the fed that is, but I can see them trying that too.

Betcha I get first post!

We'll be 18 months into production by next year!

Exactly - they are selling less than 4% of the company at a valuation of 1.5 trillion. 4% of 1.5 trillion is ~70 billion. That's what they are expecting to raise.

Also not Vatican City - Pope wants to keep his options open.

I don't think they literally meant at the same exact time. I believe they meant in the same day, or at least in the same dispatch. Fixed one at a time, then on to the next.

No, there is no AI bubble. A bubble happens when valuations (stock prices) wildly exceed revenue - that happened during the dot.com bubble - companies with *no revenue whatsoever* were valued to the moon. And no one seemed to notice or care.

Todays situation with AI is not that. Revenue is massive, is growing wildly, and stock valuations are really not overextended - given the reasonable estimates of future growth for the companies. There is a huge amount of money being used to build out more AI, but that is largely coming from money the companies *already made*. Expect that to keep going for 2-5 more years, and end up with some excess capacity (similar to the build-out of the railroads back in the day [sigh - good times]) - there is always over-building.

We have had a recent bubble- but that was in quantum computing. Wild valuations on companies with no revenue to speak of - and that basically peaked and popped in November.

But if the whole concept of a confrontational negotiation over pay makes you feel queasy, you can do what I have done in the past.

Hand them your current pay-stub. Do NOT let them keep it, or copy it - I hope that goes without saying.

Then just say "Here's what I make now. Make me want to come here."

Worked pretty well.

The release date really isn't the right question to ask. The right question is - when was the last time someone bought a copy of this game expecting to be able to play it? Not every user bought theirs 10 years ago. If I bought mine last month I'd be pretty incensed.

If the company stopped selling it and removed all copies from stores 5 years ago, expecting to end of life it this year, that's one thing. If they have been continually offering it for sale and pull the plug on everyone arbitrarily, that's quite another.

If the latter is the case (NPI), then I think having a court decide is appropriate.

I'm an old man. I yell at systemd.