Not necessarily. Providing multiple degrees of freedom to modulate an input to a power train does present some real benefits to humans, especially if both control inputs work in different ways with different characteristics.

We are not machines. We can't perfectly modulate a linear input to achieve what we want in every circumstance.

No they aren't. They are taking a superior simple power source and simulating a control scheme that previously was used by riders using two degrees of freedom to modulate powers to the wheels in a way that is for the rider easier to achieve than using a simple linear throttle control alone.

I get where you're coming from, on the face of it it sounds similar to the IONIC 5N's fake gear shift that Hyundai introduced, but in this case it's vastly different. The point here is not to simulate the feeling of some inferior kludge that made an ICE engine work, it's to simulate the control input that riders are used to using for some very specific scenarios.

No one will wonder what they were thinking about this. We know what they are thinking (and we know what Hyundai were thinking too), and they both make sense. One from an actual technical point of view, and the other from a sales to idiots point of view.

Why provide a mechanical part that does something more poorly than the parts you already have on the bike? Clutches solve problems created by the nature of the internal combustion engine...

... they have no purpose in a system where you can modulate the full engine power delivery itself.

Kinetic energy assistance systems are not remotely what anyone is talking about here, but they would potentially have a place. But it is very much worth noting that such a system has an adverse affect on bike stability. Storing energy in a moving flywheel enough to make a meaningful difference results in a gyroscopic reaction effect. Do you like high-siding? Because that's how you get high-siding.

It's a question of scale. Where do you find more insider trading, in a heavily regulated sports betting system, or on an open unregulated trading platform where people can make bets on literally anything?

In sports betting insider trading is rare enough that I bet you had to look up a case of it to make your point. On the flip side on Polymarket it is common enough that I can mention multiple instances of insider trading (and also suspected instances) from the past 2 months alone.

No it's not. Sports betting is heavily regulated.

Match fixing is a thing but in the major sports, the TV revenue is larger than betting revenue by several orders of magnitude.

Smoke!

If it's regular sports betting, then people aren't winning because of insider information.

Actually 76.5% isn't very good. I expected it to be higher.

Americans on average want increased benefits and lowered taxes.

That may seem like a contradiction, and it is; but anyone who increases taxes or lowers benefits gets voted out of office. Even Trump gave up getting rid of Obamacare.

Note they didn't ask people to stop submitted AI code. They asked people to stop submitting AI slop.

Presumably if the code produced is high quality, they will be willing to accept it.

At first I thought this was really dumb. Besides, how can you patent something that's non-existent. But then I figured it can be useful to recreate familiar controls and how they feel. Makes it easier, especially in competition, to back and forth between different types with no loss of skill and reflex. I mean these are recreational machines. Let them have fun regardless.

There is precedence for simulating the action and feel of controls. Happens in aircraft all the time to help ease the burdens of type rating. And I realized that all my newer tractors on the farm no longer have a clutch in the same sense as the old dry clutch days, yet they still have a pedal that simulates it electronically. Technically they call it an inching pedal.

There are legitimate criticisms on can make of the EU. None of that negates the fact that the U.S. is descending into a fascist oligarchy.

That sounds like a simple answer but ultimately is one which creates a new problem. Indeed the basis of your arguments of passing costs on to the providers sounds solid but we have multiple technical and economic issues that doesn't make this proposal work:

1) Solar isn't an issue. We have excess power available during the day, but datacentres are a relatively constantly load. The biggest stress they will place on the grid is at 7pm when the sun doesn't shine.
2) You could require solar + storage, but even then datacentres will demand a huge grid connection. That grid connection needs to be guaranteed through infrastructure anyway because they aren't going to simply accept a large outage because it was cloudy for a few days. The grid isn't going to accept massive instabilities as major providers also suddenly demand this power all at a similar time so the capacity needs to be available.
3) The people who care are not the people who have a say in this case. This is literally neighbouring states passing costs on to you for their policy. Why would they change their policy to address the needs of *your* people. It's not their residents. They get the economic benefits while sharing the costs. There's literally no reason these states would do what you suggest as it would make *them* worse off (and again shows how a mixture of federal and state based systems breaks down in practice).

One of the biggest dynamic changes here is that due to solar and wind being largely day time producers, the biggest green energy transition countries and now finding the opposite, the excess capacity is very much during the day.

Where I live this has already happened. Off-peak and on-peak in our contracts have already changed incentivising people to try and doing heavy loads like charging cars, heating, washing, drying, etc during the middle of the day rather than overnight. For info on this google "Solar Duck Curve" In the past 5-10 years the situation has changed dramatically in many parts of the world.