Not at all. When it's rigged, it's not gambling,and the law agrees with me.

And that's why OP was not allowed to drive taxis at the time. Can you say the same for AIs?

I've been a rider for about 15 years. The absence of shifting is one of the things which makes EVs significantly less fun (in both cars and bikes/scooters). Even video games and movies recognize this in how they implement futuristic EVs.

The clutch on a bike is also more important than the clutch on a car, and it's a big part of the feel of a bike. Motorcycle clutches are 'wet', you can be half-on and half-off clutch. This is useful for helping control against engine torque to the wheels, 'engine braking' as well as controlling launch. For anyone accustomed to riding, it's a necessary feature, because it's literally how motorcycles work. Remove it and it doesn't feel like the same thing; it removes a lot of the enjoyment and tactility of the activity, and subsequently the enjoyment, of controlling a machine. It feels like you're doing something (and you are).

EVs feel more like a railcar, it's the exact opposite of the freedom of movement that motorcycles give you.

The high US insurance prices aren't funding a lot of medical research. The research is done around the world in universities and research institutes at a steady rate.

The US pharmaceuticals want a lot of money from Americans so they can *develop* the existing research into products and corner the market. That is not cheap, because the bar to entry is high. The bar to entry is high because when private corporations rush to market, they make mistakes. And they rush to market only so that they can beat their competitors.

Other countries don't mind waiting a little longer to see if the rushed drugs have side effects. This lowers their price. Because once the pharmaceuticals have served the impatient clients first, their marginal costs are almost zero and the added revenue is effectively free.

It's not gambling when a participant can act on insider information.It's a rigged system.

The comparison with casino games is not appropriate. The casino merely biases the outcome to give players a less than even chance of winning. That chance is low, but guaranteed to be nonzero, and the gamblers are able to agree to the conditions of the game in full.

Insider trading causes the "gambler" to be deliberately misled into thinking a particular game is being played when it is not.

3D printers are bought all around the world, and many countries do not have the lawful right to carry or manufacture personal weapons designed for killing people.

Bambu Lab wants to sell its products in the wider international markets - for the purpose of increased profitability of course. Therefore, it needs to optimize its offerings so that it doesn't fall afoul of the law in all countries of interest simultaneously.

There's not an agency in the US government at this point which doesn't drastically manipulate its data to fit either internal politics, or political party agendas.

The problem at AWS is that they largely don't have 'core competencies' anymore, and haven't realized it yet.

They used to be a company which embraced new ways of doing things and doing small, agile things quickly. That hasn't been the case for half a decade now - in part due to cultural changes pushed from the top, but largely hasn't been the case for a while.

You'd think a cloud company with a fully distributed global infrastructure would have been one of the forefront proponents of remote work, and they did lean in on that a little bit at first, but quickly reversed course - in part due to the kinds of people they'd started hiring in excess not working. Those people are predominantly NOT the traditional hard charging, results-oriented people they used to hire, and are instead people who seem to prefer meeting over doing.

Why would any of this require reducing benefits or even increasing working hours? These are orthogonal issues with privacy and sovereignty and national security.

His own sister has made rape and sexual assault accusations against Altman, which supposedly went on for decades. He's "questionable" at best with regard to the murder of one of his prior coworkers/employees who was going to blow the whistle. I'm not sure what Musk has done comparable.

Not sure that makes sense in this context: "each operator improvising its own survival plan in isolation" is the essence of open source. Scratch your own itch. Do it without endless coordination and compromises with other people being required. Explain and share your solution. If others like it, they can use it. If not, they can improvise their own.

Hush now, trumpist, we've debated this to death in another story. You lost.

I think it's a great idea. It was a technically reasonable solution to sharing the costs of hosting and serving content when the web was small. It got run over by spam and trolls and warez eventually but we've learned a lot about content moderation and filtering in the last 25 years.

The main issue is that companies feel they can't monetize their own content if they have no way to control distribution servers, but that should not be a consideration for open source provided it's the kind of open source that is willing to be free to use by everyone.

And just like that.... we're reinventing Usenet.

So they should willingly contribute to the public good by wholly paying for not just the expansion they want themselves but also extra.

Many of them will eventually, by going out of business. That will cause demand destruction. In the meantime they are like the smelly neighbour who showed up at the party, and everyone just has to hold their nose.