EOs like this shouldnt be worth the price of the paper they are written on

Especially those signed in crayon.

Because they have no real ability to do it at this time, not controlling any branch of the government.

But after the next major election cycle, they may gain enough seats to actually do something about it.

Right now they are setting up a campaigning point - telling the general population that if they are given the power they will make a move that aims to benefit consumers. Also, this type of move can be made to paint Republicans into a corner, make them go on record supporting such a deal and use that against them during the election. "Remember when your Republican representative approved this merger and then Netflix raised their prices another $5/month?"

It's amazing how cheap food is in Japan yet somehow they don't have to rely on customers providing most of the employee salary directly through tips.

Oh yeah, in most places around the world they don't have franchise fees funneling profits up to the executives and share holders.

Why do they have to be fully off-grid to not be hypocritical? It's possible to be on-grid and a responsible user of shared resources.

I think it's a very valid complaint that data centers are coming online and expecting bulk discounts on electricity and tax subsidies to locate to a specific area. They don't benefit the local economy at all long term, only short term construction jobs.

These data centers should be required to install an equal amount of renewable energy capacity within 5-10 years so there's a plan to be independent. I know I'm sick of these mega corporations sucking out even more resources.

I would love to have a kei car - just got back from spending a few weeks in Japan visiting family. Kei cars are highly efficient, packing tremendous interior space/utility in a small footprint. The issue is most people almost never go above 50mph in one because there is no need.

Personally - I'd love to have a Honda N-One E but I'd never drive that on a highway. It would be a good local commuter vehicle.

Subaru needs to raise the money somehow to pay for all the advertisements telling everyone how much they donate to charity each year.

That's a ridiculous over simplification. It's true that vehicles can't simply mow down jay-walking pedestrians as there is a reasonable expectation the driver avoids any contact... but if a pedestrian unexpectedly ventures into traffic the driver is unlikely to face any legal issues unless under the influence.

What other material would you suggest? The debris that cracked the windshield could have punched a hole through a metal skin, leaving the crew in a similar predicament.

The relative speed of various bits of space debris in relation to manned objects can carry significant potential energy, even for something as small as a screw.

Amazing what people will say for money.

I'm not commenting on the quality of the cars simply the conflict of interest.

Not usually how markets work. You'll have the "ground breakers" which is Space X in this instance. They do most of the heavy lifting (pardon the pun) to develop a new product or service. Once they show it can be done, the copy cats enter the market. Their development will be much less because now they know how to do it.

Obviously building rockets isn't cheap and won't get much competition but there's obviously a huge market for it.

Not saying BO will succeed long term, just pointing out that being the 1st to a market doesn't guarantee a monopoly in most cases.

People liked Musk when he was heading companies that were truly innovating. No one gave a shot about his politics.

People can't stand Musk now because he turned his focus to politics and became just another rich asshole believing the world exists to make him more money.

It seems being very wealthy and getting into politics normally ends poorly.

Just put techs on the front line - if they want to require their people to do the repairs.. better be able to do it while under fire in a war zone.

Science? Really? There's a lot of soft-brained, unscientific and technophilic pseudo-religion in the article.

Let's work with the argument's load-bearing phrase, "exploration is an intrinsic part of the human spirit."

There are so many things to criticise in that single statement of bias. Suffice it to say there's a good case to be made that "provincial domesticity and tribalism are prevalent inherited traits in humans", without emotional appeals to a "spirit" not in evidence.

You are injecting your own prejudices into the data. Please stop.

I remember the candy cigarettes while growing up, aimed at introducing children to become future smokers. The candy itself was awful and you got one "puff" before all you had left was a rock hard piece of gum... but kids are easily impressionable. My parents could have told me to not buy it but they couldn't stop me from spending $.50 on the way home from school and buying from the local shop.

Social media is no different. They aim to get kids hooked and reliant on their services because it's much easier to sway a child than adult (I guess looking at our current administration, this can be debated). I can tell my son no social media but I can't hover over him 24/7.

The ban is obviously impossible to completely enforce but there can be measures put in place limiting the platform focus on attracting youth.