nateoearth

I was looking for this comment! One world government (could be highly federated, depending) is the only reasonable solution I see for world peace, climate change, global workers' rights, etc. It's an understandably unpopular idea, but the United States has arguably come pretty close (we have the standard world currency, naval patrols spanning nearly the entire globe, etc.). If we hadn't outsourced so much of our production to China starting a few decades ago, we would probably be within striking distance of true global hegemony at this point.

That being said, the field is much more competitive now. Whichever nation wins the weaponized AI race--which will presumably come with the benefit of advanced missile defense systems, cyberwarfare capabilities, and such--will be in a position to feasibly take over the world by the end of this century. Personally, I'm rooting for the United States/NATO/EU.

Politicians, DM me if you're looking for a maverick campaign advisor!

I think it's actually both. Some people buy bigger cars for looks/status, and then others (esp. parents of small children) feel compelled to buy a larger, safer vehicle in response. In the case of minivans, they are choosing a less cool, but safer, vehicle than smaller alternatives.

Occupants of the largest vehicles on the road experience less than 1/10 of the fatalities than those in the smallest. We desperately need new regulations/legislation to address the vehicle size arms race.

https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf...

This is sadly untrue; larger vehicles are safer, and the largest are the safest. Legislation is the only way I can see to stop the vehicle size/weight arms race.

https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf...

Strict weight limits would be hugely beneficial for addressing environmental, safety, and infrastructure cost concerns.

A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).

But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.

This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.

Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.

TikTok's leadership answers to the CCP. It is a tool for propaganda and psychological warfare against the United States. We're going to ban TikTok for the same reason China banned Facebook, IG, Google, human rights organizations' websites, etc.: as a countermeasure against psychological warfare.

It's true that banning TikTok will also benefit US social media companies. This is similar to how we restrict the manufacture of advanced weaponry to US manufacturers. Yes, this kind of policy creates an advantage for domestic producers. And yes, it also serves important national security interests. Both can be true at the same time.

Top comment smells like it was paid for (or posted) by the CCP.

My feelings are very much the opposite. Republicans and Democrats can hardly ever work together to get something positive accomplished. Banning TikTok--an app which is perhaps the largest psyop against the US population in history--is a breath of fresh air.

Counterpoint: a strong sense of identity is a crucial ingredient for a meaningful life. Studies have consistently shown that actively religious people are happier that their non-religious counterparts. Identities can grant access to social networks, epitomized in conventions attracting thousands of people who gleefully share an identity (e.g., DEF CON for hackers). Etc.

Did the startups fail because people were stealing intellectual property? (For example, by illegally obtaining trade secrets, such as proprietary source code.) Or did they fail because they were unable to create offerings that customers valued above the cost to produce them?

Until the United States economy no longer recognizes intellectual property rights, this is a critical distinction, whether we're discussing books, music, or proprietary software and hardware designs.

I believe what they mean to convey is "the majority of people benefiting from increasing automation are those with higher IQs."