True, although there are different Shahed versions. The Shahed 238 is jet powered and much quicker.

The Shaheds are similar in capability to the v1 rockets of WWII, albeit with much better guidance systems. v1s were widely shot down by fighter planes of the period and Ukraine did in fact use low speed prop planes armed with machine guns against Shaheds for a while. They've now been superseded by interceptor drones, which is why Ukraine is talking with the Gulf states about assisting in air defense.

But the problem with the high-volume fast-moving missiles is that we can't probably protect everywhere, especially if the high-volume missiles move to fast for cheap interceptor drones.

One question (which I honestly don't know the answer to) is whether measures like chaff, the phalanx, directed energy, etc. work well with missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds at high volumes. They must have some limit to how many targets they can engage at one time.

Besides that, it's not just U.S. warships, but any target the U.S. cares about (including those of foreign allies/trading partners). An aircraft carrier may be able to defend against a massed attack of these missiles, but it makes the air defenses in places like Dubai useless (at least as currently strucutred). Stories have already come out about them using multiple Patriot missles to shoot down a single cheap "Shahed" drone, which is far slower and easier to hit than a missile described by TFA.

One of these will be easily shot down. The question is what happens if they launch 500 at once? You can't do that with the fancy stuff that costs millions a pop.

Even if you could get people to accept a pilotless airplane, the savings just aren't there. A widebody aircraft will consume about 30,000 gallons of Jet-A on a single 8 hour flight at around $6/gallon. That's almost $200k in fuel alone. Then you have the flight attendants (at least 8) who each make at around $80k/yr, the amortized cost of the $100 million airplane, the maintenance, and the ground fees (The gate rental, lounges, etc.). Even at $400k a year only flying 4x a month (two round trips), the pilot only costs $8k (or $16k for both pilots, although the first officer makes a little less).

The savings of automation is extremely marginal compared to something like a taxi where the operating costs of the equipment are a much smaller fraction of the total cost. On top of that, the potential liability in an accident is huge. We've all seen what a widebody aircraft can do to a skyscraper. There's no competitive advantage to be had automating the aircraft.

It is, but compiling that data according to SEC/GAAP requirements is still a big project for a small company. It generally requires several weeks of work for a dedicated team. No big deal if you have 10,000 employees and 200 accountants on staff. It's a problem if your entire accounting team is occupied for weeks at a time just compiling data for the 10Q instead if doing all of the other work of the company.

No, whether a company is "evil" has no relevance in court. The plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that they have a legally recognized claim. That has little to do with the ethics of the defendant. I can't successfully sue Kim Jong Un because he's evil, even if the North Korean state abstractly harms me in various ways. I have no legal claim against Kim Jong Un.

I have no objection to meaningful regulation of the oil industry and I'm not sure why you assume I did.

There is no reason why mega cap companies can't report quarterly. A company worth $100 billion+ has armies of accountants on staff in addition to securities lawyers and the like. It's not much imposition to give quarterly reports.

But the burden of reporting does cause problems for small and micro-cap companies. It no longer makes sense for a $20-200 million company (and frankly probably not for any company under several billion) to go public because compliance is quite burdensome for companies of that size. An annual or biannual reporting election could give some smaller cap companies more reason to participate in the public markets.

Yes, my post explicitly discusses jury nullification and the reasons for it. It goes back to the Magna Carta (not the U.S. founders) and probably before. But again, the problem is that there are good reasons not to have juries simply refuse to reach a certain decision every time they don't like a result. It's supposed to be a backstop against rank abuse of the legal system, not a license for juries to ignore the law. This is why a judge can throw out a jury verdict in a civil case under certain circumstances.

I'm actually a lawyer, but thanks for the lecture.

A lawsuit can be filed by anyone for anything at all. What happens to that lawsuit will depend on meeting procural requirements and the merits under the law in the jurisdiction where it is filed. There are various common law theories or statutes one could file a case for climate change, but the core difficulty is that the harm is extremely diffuse. Any particular oil producer could cease operations tomorrow and it would have zero impact on the climate because another company would simply meet the market demand instead. Besides that, most oil in the world is produced abroad by foreign companies. ARAMCO isn't going to give two figs about these suits, and it's bigger than Exxon and Chevron combined. That's not FUD- it's the simple fact of how the energy economy works.

If you want to reduce oil use, you need to take measures to curb demand. This could be done by taxes, regulation, or incentives to use alternatives. But oil use itself is not "evil." If we ceased producing oil tomorrow, a substantial fraction of the human population would starve to death without means for making fertilizer, tending crops, or shipping those crops to market. Technical alternatives to oil are getting better, but it's a decades long build-out. I think you are going to have an uphill battle showing a company is "evil" or legally liable for producing a product required for civilization to survive, at least in the near future.
 

I don't think most parents have any idea what a "loot box" is.

Climate change is normal... over the course of thousands of years. Climate change occurring within a normal human lifespan is unprecedented.

Sure, but you can't opt out of consuming fossil fuels by only focusing on materials made with hydrocarbons. You are directly or indirectly consuming fossil fuels every time you ride in a gas car, eat food grown with fertilizer, fly on an airplane, turn on a light switch, or buy something shipped via truck. If we want to file climate lawsuits, every single human being could be named a defendant.

Juries are supposed to decide the facts, and judges the law. It's not "lying" to tell the jury that the case will go a certain way if they find certain facts. However, what you hint at is the confused history behind jury nullification. This is mostly a criminal issue, but part of the idea behind the juries was that they could override an authority who was too aggressive. That's something that goes beyond fact. The problem is that judges are loathe to tell juries they can nullify as they don't want juries to think that they can make up the law for themselves.

Falling EV sales in China are misleading because EV market share has not declined. It's that all vehicle sales are down and EVs now make up a majority of the Chinese new car market.