Sure, just cut off the fuel - that won't cause any problems.

Oh, wait, if the engine gets no fuel, then it will stop running. That will cause abrupt deceleration, and likely a lack of power steering. Further, your brake lights won't go on unless you actually hit the brake pedal. Now, can you think what the consequences would be of that happening in lane 3 of a congested freeway, especially if it's raining?

If you answered, "I'm sure it'll be just fine," then I suggest testing it for yourself - just hit the freeway in rush-hour and turn your engine off when doing [max posted speed] in lane 3...

Or even just lift all the way off the gas, so at least you'll have steering (for all the help that'll be).

I'll send flowers.

Is it going to be a very simple limiter that imposes an overall maximum speed of that jurisdiction's fastest road? Or is it going to be a complicated, GPS + road-speed maps device, so you can't go faster than the posted limit on any road?

Either way, it's not going to work as intended.

In the former case, they'll still be able to go at freeway speeds on urban/suburban streets.

In the latter, it will cause accidents. GPS position is always an approximation, with a variable error (usually represented by a circle around your "position" on the map - the wider the circle, the greater the error) that can be more than 60 feet. So when the GPS-enabled speed limiter decides that you're not on the freeway but on the suburban street that runs parallel to it or, indeed the bridge over it, the abrupt and unexpected deceleration is not going to end well for anyone.

It's worth remembering that "sonic boom hysteria" in the US, and the subsequent federal ban on supersonic civil aviation over land, only occurred after Boeing cancelled their own SST project.

The Concorde order-book crashed (pardon the pun) due to the 70s oil crisis, which in turn stopped work on the Block 2 version of Concorde.

No. The Block 2 Concorde was scrapped due to the oil crisis in the 70s, but it was a tragic accident caused by runway FOD from a Boeing that took the original fleet off the flight-line after 30-some years of service. Branson/Virgin even offered to buy and operate BA's planes, but due to past animosity they declined.

If you discount the R&D paid for by the French and British governments, on a day-to-day basis Concorde was operationally a profit-maker for their respective flag-carrier airlines as, it turned out, there were enough people for whom the trade-off between cost and time was worthwhile. After all, the difference in price for the NYC-London run between 1st class in a widebody and a seat on Concorde was surprisingly small.

The noise issue is an interesting one - the boom from a plane at 40,000+ feet is almost insignificant compared to a clap of thunder, and yet no-one complains about broken windows/doors/etc from that. As an aside, it's also worth pointing out that the whole "sonic boom" hysteria in the USA didn't actually exist until Boeing scrapped their own SST project. Coincidence?

If they can fly at Mach 2+ for most of a 3,500nm range, then there will be people wanting to use it for the NYC->London/Paris route, or Dubai->Singapore, etc, as long as the ticket is price-competitive with taking a Lear.

For many things and many people this is true, but some things require physical presence and for some people the Time=Money equation will work out in Boom's favour.

Nah. Just like Concorde had, Boom will have dedicated passenger-handling rolled into the ticket price. I mean, why not?

Unless you get a helicopter, or can land at City Airport instead of LHR.

...they're unlikely to know what "synonym" means...

...that they'd try the Russian Roulette challenge using a single live round in a Glock.

The "people" who TikTok for a living also believe that "iPhone," "smartphone" and "phone" are synonyms.

...anyone who actually gives a tuppenny fuck?

Thought not...

Not quite. The typical order of events is:

Government: We have a poorly thought-out IT project. Which of you private companies wants a boat-load of taxpayer money to make it happen?
Company: We'll take that, thank you. Oh, and quite unrelatedly, please have this donation to your campaign/political party.
Govt: Thank you very much. Oh, and quite unrelatedly, have this knighthood for your CEO.
Cmpy: Thanks. By the way, this project will cost much more money and take longer.
Govt: Sure.

Some time later...

Govt: So, about that project?
Cmpy: Oh, it's ready to start limited roll-out, but will need more money for full deployment.
Govt: Sure.

Some time later...

Taxpayer: What the fuck is this piece of shit you're making me use?
Govt: It's all fine
Cmpy: It's all fine.
TP: Wait - all my data has been stolen and sold, my identity has been used to get loans I knew nothing about, and I'm now bankrupt.
Cmpy: Well, it's not our fault.
Govt: Well, it's not our fault.
TP: Grrrr!
Govt: OK, so we'd best have an inquiry to find out what happened. It will report back in 10 years. Meanwhile, we've got a new poorly thought-through IT project. Which of you private companies wants a boat-load of taxpayer money to make it happen?

Repeat to fade...

I quite agree - more rent and less privacy seems to be the mantra of the moment.

Regarding your editing tools - if they don't otherwise require network access, then run them in a VM with the network stack disabled and a host folder mapped to a VM drive letter to get data in and out.

Or, if you're feeling particularly limber, try this.

When you're smashing your head against a wall every 10 seconds, the solution to the pain is not a better analgesic.

Same here, and he was the CIO for a global investment bank. He also dictated his replies for his secretary to type up and send.

It's a telescope, so it's a receiver. Why - and, indeed, what - was it transmitting?