Couldn't potential RAM manufacturers lock in long-term contracts, sort of like oil futures? That would be a win-win for phone companies and RAM makers. Even if the big RAM makers try to bust the future market with price dumps, the phone companies would still win due to market predictability, which is a huge thing.

No, the big difference between the Chinese car companies and Tesla, etc. is that there was a deliberate national policy intended to dump below-market priced vehicles in foreign countries. If China simply wanted to foster economic or technological development within China or to advantage a subset of Chinese companies to the detriment of other Chinese companies, no one outside of China would care. The problem is entirely that of a Chinese strategy to promote their companies at the intended detriment of non-Chinese companies.

This proposal doesn't look like a tax but rather like seizure via eminent domain. Taking 50% of someone's property is very close to seizing the property outright. If this were allowed, then the government could seize half of someone's real property without any compensation. I imagine that such a move would be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps a tax against "income" from funds derived from borrowing against unrealized gains is a better and more fair alternative. It's real money derived from stock holdings, sort of like another form of dividends.

The super big problem with the proposed tax isn't the fairness question. The big problem is that it's a one-time windfall that might trigger recurring spending proposals. Locking in recurring spending based on one-time income is a super stupid financial decision.

I think the framing uses "work" (not described what that might be) as a proxy for some complex task. The article also mentions talking to his daughter and communicating remotely with the UCD researchers. Work is mentioned not to impute any inherent value to that work but to imply that the computer system can accomplish non-trivial, complex, useful tasks.

Some people derive fulfillment or other social or emotional benefits from their work, but many do not, instead deriving life-sustaining money from work.

There is essentially no agreement of significance. When the ships start sailing, then we can say some negotiating progress has been made. Even then, the nuclear issue and the sanctioned Iranian assets and compensation issues, which are the real issues, are still unlikely to be quickly settled. You can easily see how this will play out as both the Americans and Iranians are touting their own negotiating successes. Iran cannot seem weak in accepting all American demands without getting something in return, and Trump won't accept anything less than complete Iranian surrender across all issues. There may be a few electronic signatures on a pre-settlement agreement of something fuzzy, but all the key points of contention remain as before.

It's interesting that standardized tests recognize the importance of reading comprehension. However, due to logistical constraints, the reading passages in those tests run only a few paragraphs. Not surprisingly, we produce workers that are geared to reading short passages. Online resources, social media, texting, etc. further this propensity toward short-form reading. Yet, there are many professions that require long-form reading. Lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. reading legal cases and contracts, research and project reports, etc. Long-form reading comprehension is not an instinctive ability but rather a skill that must be trained. However, our educational system not only structurally avoids this type of training, it has pivoted to allowing good grades and success while avoiding long-form reading. It used to be that reading textbooks helped in classes. Now, even reading assigned novels in literature classes is not needed because AI is a super-charged Cliff Notes that requires even less reading than Cliff Notes.

I'm not sure MAGA folks think that Trump is trustworthy, maybe, maybe not. What they think is that their lives are not what they expected. Income equality has hit them hard. They're frustrated. Trump comes along and tells them that it's not their fault. It's the fault of Democrats, Biden, immigrants, Africans, Latin Americans, Chinese, blue states, etc. The one thing MAGA folk have despite income equality is a sea of votes. A populist comes along and sweeps away all their problems by blaming their social enemies. The blame was never really reasonable, but reason is not needed because the blame is felt viscerally. This is why Trump without fear of retribution can murder someone in Times Square, or say that he loves inflation, or unilaterally start a new war after blaming Biden for starting wars, etc. The social blame is what endures. Outsiders might view that blame as hate, but MAGA sees it as liberation.

"The Justice Department has approved Paramount Skydance's $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery without requiring divestitures or other concessions."

Absolutely not true. CBS was required to divest itself of Stephen Colbert. Canceling the #1 late night talk show that was earning many millions of dollars after considering streaming revenue was a purely political decision that was entirely mandated (wink-wink not mandated) by the Trump administration.

How is regeneration helpful during descents? Maybe during the middle of the flight, but recharging the batteries right at the end of the flight doesn't seem that helpful. I'm not a pilot. How often do descents in the middle of a flight happen? Maybe for reconnaissance flights but not for passenger or cargo flights?

Agree with everything except the cost part. Perhaps eventually after many years of commercialization, there might be an expectation that the cost is equivalent or at least economically viable. However, that's an unnecessary and progress-blocking requirement during the research phase, a requirement that would have killed most historical technological progress. The key during research is to demonstrate technical viability along with a path to eventual economic viability.

The main reason for making rejoining the EU hard isn't a matter of revenge but practicality. Should a member be allowed to leave and then rejoin and then leave and then rejoin with no penalty? That would seem to be a really bad way to structure a union, a contract, or a business relationship.

What's the difference among invoking the harsh penalties after the first time or the second time or the third time? Doing it after the second time seems just as arbitrary as after the first time.

It's not just incompetent drivers. Part of the problem is structural. Aside from accidents, weather, and construction, there are issues whenever cars need to switch lanes or accommodate cars merging due to on-ramps or lane merges. If the drivers could zipper merge exactly without altering their speed, then that source of congestion would disappear. Perhaps vehicle autonomy, even partially, might help with this.

Another issue that is addressed by the metering lights is that whenever the density of vehicles exceeds a threshold, even slight changes in speed from one car can cause backward ripple effects that manifest as congestion. This is the problem that the smart metering lights is trying to address, and it is a real issue. But there are also other sources of congestion not due to density.

The real mindblower is the valuation that the stock market is willing to give to SPCX. The PE ratio is ... undefined since there aren't profits yet. The ~$20 billion in annual revenue doesn't support a $2.2 trillion valuation. As with TSLA, the current numbers don't make sense, so the stock price is purely speculation about explosive future growth. Space launches don't come close to supporting the valuation, even with wildly optimistic projections for future growth. Only Starlink has an argument to support the outsized valuation, and SPCX valuation is currently more than 4x the combined stock capitalization for Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, with a market that will be a small fraction of the total cell market for many years to come.

Then again, crypto has even less rationality behind valuation, so I guess TSLA and SPCX are much more sane relatively speaking.

Yes, while it's true that American weapons companies do benefit, how the US treats Israel is unique. For example, the US makes it a big deal when it offers weapons to Taiwan, but it makes Taiwan fully pay for those weapons on their own, whereas Israel gets a free $3.8 billion.