Make that ...in 2024 there were 7080.

In 2016, there were 6080 pedestrian deaths in the US. In 2017, there were 7080. Ascribing all 1000 of those additional deaths, plus another 2000 that presumably wouldn't have been happened, isn't credible.

I suppose what they did is make themselves a toy model which related hood height to deaths, then applied said model to actual hood heights to come up with a number. Basically assuming what they wanted to prove.

"Yes, comrade Stalin"

The truth has no bias ... It is equally for and against left and right.

sure, these are choices that stem out of another choice, namely out of the choice to have private ownership and operation of property. If the factory is private property, then it is operating in an environment that promotes and defends private property rights. This means nobody us forced to work there also, not just that nobody is owed a job there. In this environment competition is inevitable and it is competition for the purchasing power of individual buyers. So the demand and purchasing conditions are at least partially dictated by the totality of individual choices of all market participants. This is a policy choice, this is the choice I personally prefer as well.

I certainly find typing stuff out is easier than saying it. Especially as I can edit it before submission

Me too!

It's a state matter; SCOTUS isn't going to take it.

False. While the ballot measure does not impose an annual wealth tax, it authorizes the legislature to implement one without further voter approval. It also lets the legislature set the rate and the floor.

The wealth tax on Brin would amount to 67%, because it goes by percentage of voting shares or percentage of ownership, whichever is greater. I assume something similar would apply to Page, who also holds Alphabet class B shares. Of course they're going to avoid that.

I am not American. Most of my friends would probably be prepared to pay extra to NOT have AI on their phone, and only use a camera to scan QR codes.

I do use a Samsung phone with the ability to write dimensions on photos of equipment, but other than that, mostly use it to phone. I am still on the 2022 model, which was bought for me as a present.

What I really want, and would pay a fair price for today, is a properly supported Linux phone. (Hierarchical Drop-down menus, no icons). With the option to run OpenBSD on it.

As a UK Boomer, let me say "We already wanted Starmer out". Now the young ones have good reason to do the job.

I fully expect this administration to just be an extension of Trump's ego at this point. Yes, going after companies that he disagrees with is a major issue (see how the FCC pressured major networks and how quickly some of them folded).

I can't care about Anthropic getting in a spat with Trump. Anthropic were the ones that started this "our model is so good at finding security exploits, it's too dangerous" marketing campaign and people are surprised that the current administration took their word for it and banned even their "safe" version after a simple jailbreak was found? There is a good argument that there are other models that are about as good as Anthropic's models when it comes to finding potential security flaws, but none of them when around saying "it was too dangerous to release to the general public".

They made their bed and somebody came along and lit it on fire. Seems par for the course these days.

I don't even understand what died in Britain this time. Surely even before today it was up to the parents to purchase a phone or a tablet or any type of a computer and give it to their children. There is no way for google or anyone to know who is using a phone or a tablet. Today with AI I suppose it is possible to use filters to attempt automatic detection of the person who is livestreaming and allow AI decide if this person is old enough and if not the livestream will then be terminated (or prevented). This will teach children a few things. First of all it will teach them about VPNs, it will also teach them about disguising their identity to the computer, who is looking at them, while they are showing themselves off to the world. They will find new and creative ways to get around these restrictions, they will not 'innocently play', as politicians are promising. There will not be a return to the "good old days". Parents will set up phones and tablets for their offspring because it is easier than to parent and that will be that.

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.