The assumption there is that nobody can produce anything here that China would want? How is that logical? China has a huge consumer market too. They want airplanes, heavy equipment, software (they can't pirate corporate software as it would be unsupported), etc. At some point robots will be able to do most jobs, and we'll need universal basic income obtained by the government providing some shares in the robot companies to people. Astute people would have their own private shares too from which they get good dividends. Income will have to come from ownership stake, private and (minimally) public.

ChatGPT didn't tell them bluetooth speakers were invented 25 years ago?

Every windows licensee will be given a share in the Brooklyn bridge.

There's a cost to increasing salaries. The cost of the product or service will be higher, meaning fewer consumers will have access to it. Also, it may not be profitable at all to produce that. Think about it. If there were car windshield installation costs $1 million. It would make cars unaffordable and only the ultra rich would have it.

The ideal scenario is that salaries are "low" (cost of production), but that low salary will provide enormous buying power (goods are widely available and dirt cheap). We need to model the economy and stimulate how to do that.

Think of it this way if millions of construction workers existed -- all willing to work for $1 an hour .. everyone could live in a mansion because the cost of building a home would be so low. Even the construction worker would be able to afford themselves a mansion as well.

Any job for which a worker is able to demand more than minimum wage is in shortage.

Yeah that is one of my favorite episodes actually. I thought I was the only one who really appreciated it.

Whoever wins, we lose.

This is like the Gambino and Genovese crime families going at each other.

Is it going to recognize people who have a sack over their face?

Note: I am not against Muslims just religious whackos of every kind. Wearing a sack over your face is a whacko thing by all objective standards.

But encourage prosecutors to use discretion. Kind of like jaywalking tickets if people arenâ(TM)t abusing it and if itâ(TM)s occurring rarely then give a scare/warning and let it go.

Rocket-catching above ground became a necessity when it was discovered that a huge amount of dust obscures the ground as the rocket nears the surface. The first company to patent catching a landing rocket from the top was Blue Origin, back in 2017: https://patents.google.com/pat...

The idea looks identical to what the Chinese are doing.

Never, ever, take a medication holiday without prior authorization from your psychiatrist and certainly not when you're outside the padded room and have access to the internet.

Healthcare is expensive largely because skilled physicians are scarce. Whether that's due to the difficulty of medical training, limited medical school capacity, or both, the result is the same: there are far fewer qualified surgeons than there are people who need them. Scarcity drives up the value of their time.
Imagine a world where anyone could become a competent brain surgeon simply by reading "Brain Surgery for Dummies". In that world, surgical labor would be as abundant as barbering, and the cost of surgery would approach the cost of a haircut. (Incidentally, barbers were the original surgeons.)
Humanoid robots and AI could move us close to that scenario. If a robot can reliably execute the physical motions of surgery under the guidance of a highly capable model, then the scarcity shifts from human dexterity to software. We've already seen early demonstrations, such as a gallbladder surgery performed using a Unitree G1 humanoid robot. Assuming robotic hand dexterity continues to improve over the next five years, it's plausible that the countdown to the obsolescence of manual surgery will begin around 2031. On that timeline, human-performed surgery could become the exception rather than the norm within roughly fifteen years—around 2046.
By that point, the same humanoid robot that unclogs your toile and performs household repairs could also perform highly specialized surgery ---and give you a haircut. Strangely, the robotic haircut sounds more scary than the brain surgery.
One counterargument is that the AI models capable of performing neurosurgery will be proprietary and tightly controlled by a handful of corporations. But it's not obvious that such a monopoly would be sustainable. The history of AI suggests otherwise. Today, there are high-quality open-source models across many domains. A company might maintain a lead for a few years, but eventually open alternatives emerge. Just as Nvidia released its self-driving reasoning model Alpamayo as open source, it's easy to imagine a consortium of surgeons, universities, or nonprofits releasing open-source surgical models. Once that happens, the software behind expert surgery becomes broadly accessible, and the economics of healthcare change fundamentally.

A different group showed that the whole transplant can be done autonomously with no human involvement. Reference: https://hub.jhu.edu/2025/07/09...

They overhyped Mythos/Fable and it got banned temporarily. They really suck at the fine line between getting the benefits of marketing your product as able destroy world and getting it banned because you said it can destroy the world.

Why are there so many contact binaries, seems odd.