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.

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.

Those are not the same. The drones in Davydov's video are piloted, the operator selects the target, then engages Auto mode for the terminal flight. That's designed to get around the electronic warfare stuff carried on some vehicles, and because the radio signal tends to degrade rather a lot the closer you fly to the ground.

The drones in this test are fully autonomous hunter-killers. The drone flies to the designated area, finds and selects the target, then goes after it. It offers advantages over the drones with Auto mode: no operator is required (saving manpower, which Ukraine is short on) or endangered by having to sit in a forward base near the front (saving lives).

Next step is to make these things loiter. Perch on a building and keep looking for movement; with a decent battery they might watch an area for a couple of days.

That's a reasonable argument for some situations. We've gone from range anxiety to charge anxiety: even in N. Europe with a fairly dense network of fast chargers, you may find lines at chargers during the holidays, when there are large groups of motorists on long journeys.

A Plug-in Hybrid may be a good option for people who have to make the occasional longer trip. Some models can do over 100km on the battery, which means that for typical users the vast majority of shopping trips and daily commutes will be done on the battery. Especially if they can recharge at work (which by the way, even here in Europe, is still pretty much non-existent)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not feeling or seeing a great deal of excitement about the arrival of AI on our personal devices. I'm also at a loss about what the compelling use case is supposed to be. Of course there are coding assistants and AI-driven help desks, which are great, and the AI summary in Google search is becoming more useful, but outside of corporate (read: easily monetizable) applications, where is the killer app that warrants, the trillion dollar investments, and the terawatt data centers?