IIRC, a "recall" is a notification of a defect in a car that needs addressing. If that can be done OTA, it's still a recall.

With the right hype, and a high enough price tag on the machine, the coffee snobs will be all over this.

Small difference: drugs are known to be harmful, and illegal. The harm of social media to developing children has only recently been documented

If it is known that social media harms kids, then doesn't the state share some of the blame? Why is there no law?
If it is not known (or only recently came to light), can you really blame the social media companies? You could blame them for trying to block relevant legislation, but not for harm done in the past.
If the harmful effects were known to the companies and they kept it quiet, then you'd have a case, morally speaking. Bit like the tobacco firms.

So how about closing that particular loophole, and make them pay capital gains on the profits that they do realize? For instance, by taxing such loans with no "normal" repayment schedule as dividend. We've had similar issues, with business owners borrowing money from their company with no intention of ever repaying it, thus avoiding dividend tax. A new law caps these "non market conformant" loans at 100k.

A cash grab like this is pretty sickening. Even in the rather socialist leaning country I live in, this would probably not stand, local courts and the ECHR might well consider similar taxes to amount to appropriation, and illegal.

I'm also not opposed to the idea. Not because of a supposed concentration of wealth. Musk does not have a trillion dollars, taken from elsewhere, sitting in a giant warehouse somewhere; it's all stock in a massively overvalued company that he built. His riches do not make us poorer. And I don't envy him his wealth, he's welcome to it.

What I do have an issue with, is the concentration of power this represents. Wealth, whether in actual dollars, publicly traded stock or private stock, represents an undue amount of influence in politics. If we're doing a tax on large companies, or a wealth cap, this would be the reason I'd agree with it. Not a sense of "fairness".

"OpenAI hasn't had their IPO yet, so couldn't they just find some kind of workaround to avoid this?"
Not necessarily. The tax could be paid in stock, in fact that would not be a bad idea. So that the control of important companies does not remain in the hands of a handful of individuals. Again, the only justification of this would be to prevent a concentration of power.

The restrictions are a mix of reasonable nuisance management and paranoia about who is flying drones, what they can do, and chain of custody.

Beijing proper is a city with a population density of over 21,000 / km^2 -- so you can imagine the chaos if any tech enthusiast resident could fly a drone without a permit. Except for a couple of free zones in the outer boroughs, New York City restricts drone launcing and landings within the city to flights with a permit and flight plan, because otherwise the sky would be black with drones. Many cities -- both red and blue -- have zone restrictions for drone flights, and those currently hosting World Cup matches have tightened them for the duration of the tournament.

Not just "the future", but the future of AI. If you go by future projected revenue as predicted by SpaceX (which is the only projection that justifies their valuation), they are an AI company with a small space division. An AI market in which they are not at all well-positioned. Buying Cursor may improve that somewhat. Maybe that's the plan - buy every promising AI startup with stock, until they hit gold.

You're right, but our current economic systems are not well-equipped to deal with stagnating population growth. Personally I think that is one of the more difficult and important problems that we're going to have to address.

The value of money is determined by the economy that underpins it. That is why the US is hell-bent on ensuring that the dollar remains the currency for international oil trade. That's also why governments can print a little extra money without triggering inflation, if there is economic growth.

There is an economy underpinning Bitcoin as well, of sorts. But it's tiny.

We actually had one of those at our school for a while. Endurance was an issue, until EASA lowered the required reserve. Even so it saw little use, and it doesn't have the range to fly the cross country solo. Kinda sad that I never got to fly in it, it looks like fun. Just like electric cars and boats.

Range is still a bit of an issue, even if you're just doing touch & go's at your local field. You need 1 hour endurance for the lesson, 15-30 minutes alternate fuel (in case you have to divert), and 15 minutes emergency fuel (normally 45 mins, but EASA issued a waiver for electric aircraft). In practice you want an aircraft with at least 2 hours "trip fuel" (the portion used for the planned flight), so that student pilots can complete the cross-country solo flight they are required to fly. Only now are we starting to see some electric aircraft that have the battery capacity for that.

Then there's the recharging. At the flight school I attended, the airplanes would typically go up 4 times on busy days, sometimes 5. With recharging, that drops to 2-3 flights a day (you're not draining the battery completely on each flight). But if operating costs for electric planes are significantly lower, perhaps having a few extra planes might turn out to be economical... but it does mean you can't pass that savings on to your students.

That one probably uses different battery technology. Same as the Alia aircraft by Beta Technologies, which is in use by the Royal Mail in the UK.
The point of using solid state batteries is that they store more energy per kg.

Not an EU country.

He doesn't have a trillion in dollars in a warehouse like Mcscrooge. It almost all stock in a company that has the most ridiculous over-valuation in history, not actual dollars taken away from other people. I don't mind him having such virtual wealth. What I do mind is the concentration of power and influence that comes with it. And the fact that he can borrow against this fortune, to live large without paying a dime in tax. (To be fair: he did at some point sell stock or pay dividend, and paid the taxes due to the tune of $10 billion)

Nope. Not even one little bit. There are plenty of concerns, mostly about the fact that these things kill indiscriminately, opening the possibility for this weapon to commit a war crime (even when the operator had no such intention). But that doesn't make them a war crime in themselves.