He isn't even an expert. He's a hype man, a salesman.

Frankly, he's engaging in a zero sum fallacy. Because it's not perfect, it can't be done. But it quite clearly has been done, successfully, with a drastic reduction in fatalities and injury. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than anything Waymo has been able to achieve with fancy intrusive useless sensors (there's nothing quite as infuriating as getting in a Waymo and having it just sit there confused about the homeless guy standing on the curb), but it's made by Waymo's biggest potential competitor - Tesla.

You forget that Tesla's now got a (small) working Tesla robotaxi fleet, and their capabilities are far superior to what Waymo offers.

That isn't half of it.

How many people in the audience own a Tesla?

He's talking to people who, if they are not personally intimate with fully self-driving capabilities in a Tesla, are at least aware of the capability.

It's like Steve Jobs going to Xerox to give a talk about why mice are superior input devices for navigation over just a keyboard.

I got my first cellphone from a Sprint PCS store, which dates me. After that, I would just but whatever phone I felt like at Fry's or Best Buy or online. Main advantage of doing the store was I was able to pick my phone number from a list she had on the screen. And after all that I didn't keep the number because years later someone was convinced it was their number and would harass me once or twice a month about "stealing" their number. I don't need a telephone number that badly, and if some crazy person loses their shit because of it then they can have it, it means more to them than to me.

about 20% of arsons are cleared. You don't need a camera in the forest to catch someone.

Mostly by the sort of people who typically lack the resources to avoid prison. So I don't see the big deal. They can play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

11-15% - equipment use and vehicles. mowers, dirt bikes w/o arrestors, tow chains, flat tire sparks, etc.
6%-10% - arson. specifically a criminal act with human intent.
10% - utility infrastructure. winds blowing trees into lines, fallen utility poles, etc.
10-15% - lightning and natural causes.
35%-45% - miscellaneous human accidents. open burning, fire arms, fire works, smoking, kids with matches, etc. Potentially criminal negligence but a distinct category from arson.

Arson isn't really #1, at least how I think it would be typically defined. I would say negligence is the biggest super-topic among these. And solving only arson is insufficient to addressing the other more significant factors.

Can't we prosecute arsonists? Or do we need to focus on the dipshits that bet on every possible topic imaginable?

I wouldn't want to build an AI data center in a hostile country. Regardless of how well it is located to users and power. And power is fungible in the first world. Nuclear power and HVDC is endemic in the EU.

T-Mobile is on one hell of a downward spiral. It's actually impressive.

Libre office falls over on the evil spreadsheet we used for project planning at my last job: SCS (self correcting schedule). You'd check it out, add your progress updates, and it would tell you if the project is running late. Genius and an insane abuse of a tool. But at least we didn't need to get every team lead a copy of MS Project.

Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities' suffering

Totally different from hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis, right?

There's also the heightened risk -- according to state and local fire officials -- that individuals could be tempted to commit arson in order to make sure their bets are successful

This is, actually, a valid concern. I don't think, freedoms — including the freedom to bet one's own money — should be curtailed by such concerns, but it is valid.

Funny, how the authors don't hate the would-be arsonists — nowhere close to their disdain for the "rich and powerful", who might (might not!) profit from the betting...

You'd have to make a case that the constitution is being violated. Which is the point of the courts. And any remotely free nation follows the basic principle that you can petition the government.

The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)

You are incorrect. What the Carpenter determined, was not about generally "surveilling", but the particular act of requesting historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers.

The Court's majority did rule, that the 4th Amendment protects reasonable expectation of privacy, and the collection of the particular records violated this. But not in general case. What's between your cellphone and the cell-tower can be expected — reasonably to stay private. (Though personally I disagree even with that — anyone carrying an active radio should not expect it to be unnoticed.) But a visible presence in public — detectable by unaided human senses — definitely not. Police have tailed suspects for as long as law enforcement existed — and Bill of Rights' authors certainly knew about the practice existence — and there is nothing wrong about it.

Further, they didn't extend the "third-party doctrine" to the particular case of cell-site records, but they didn't repudiate it completely either.

While the average citizen is allowed to record anything they see in public [...] When the government does it, it is considered a breach of an individuals 4th amendment rights

Nope, it does not — not per Carpenter. Maybe, that's how things should be — though I'm not certain even of that. But it is not, how they are. And the list of earlier court-decisions (which I already posted twice) — the Knotts in particular — shows it.

Further, I was not talking about "the average citizen" — I was talking about a police officer. If one can watch you — without a warrant — he can also record you.

9.2 million according to Paragon Health Institute, and no one else.

Let's say it's true though. Is it all fraud? Much of it is automatic enrollment. Simply bad management by the government, as it continues to re-enroll people that have not been eligible since the end of the pandemic. (which is where most of them got added in)

Most straight-forward solution is to fast track the delayed eligibility reviews. And the OBBBA mandates that states do the reviews on a schedule, but it doesn't offer resources or a grace period. So no soft landing, and likely people dropped who shouldn't be in the scramble. (like my Mother who can't travel and is now denied a remote interview. social worker and attorney are now involved, so we'll see)

Pelosi's trading is well documented, public information in fact. But proving insider trading, even under the STOCK Act, is very difficult and nobody has picked up the case. There's a lack of concrete legal evidence to convict. Going ahead without evidence as a political witch hunt would fail spectacularly, another Ken Starr debacle like his empty accusation during the Whitewater scandal.

For what it's worth, I would be fine charging Pelosi and the entire Trump family for how they have abused their position. But I'm not going to hold my breath that any of these politicians will answer to the American People for what they have done with the power we granted to them.