Azew

Depends on what the things are. For things which you want to, or have a need to, interface with remotely, I can see a positive. The home automation aspect, HVAC, lights, security, locks, those all have value. If the "thing" accesses the internet to allow you to interface to it, that's pretty good. The opposite, when the thing becomes a browser, that's clearly proving to not be needed or even wanted.

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?

Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.

Inspecting auto software for problems is great, allowing hobbyists to tinker with their software seems problematic.

> in the US, getting a job as a barista or fast food is possible, but a horrendous waste of a college education.

Maybe. Not all college educations are created equal. Got a major in philosophy? You're not useful to the economy, there are no jobs and no one is wasting your education. Of course the example here is facetious, the point is this: If you have a college education/degree in something that is not marketable to the economy, the waste is not the economies fault, but that of whomever pursued that education.

> Even in less temperate locales I wonder if we really need to define our environment to within single degree Fahrenheit.

Hey, sure, tell that to everyone in the northern states, no need for heat right? I mean when it's 10°F outside you can just shut the windows and be nice and warm, right?

There isn't though, this calculation doesn't consider valuation of the home at sale time. What this considers is, how much could that money earn you in investments vs how much will you save in interest payments over the life of the loan.

What this does assume is that you'll live in the house long enough for the interest savings to catch up with investment gains.

> while making it illegal to rent out (buy?) property purely to rent it

Why? You're making the notion of landlords illegal? What purpose does this solve, what benefit is there? Why should I not be allowed to purchase a house and then place a tenant in it?

In many places the rental community is larger than the homeowner community, these houses would simply sit on the market, rather than have someone buy it and put a renter in it. How on earth can you justify making home rentals illegal?