But there's practically zero enforcement and everyone knows it. You have the few law abiding people doing 25 while others are doing 50 while stoned and texting.. on the same road.

Narrowing lanes creates new hazards because cars sold are only getting larger and can barely fit. There is too often no margin for error.

There are no roadworthiness inspections in these states. Many people are driving on worn tires and suspensions. Most people don't even know what types of tires they have or what the tire pressures are.

Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.

It has nothing to do with enforcement and everything to do with roads being interconnected and naturally load balancing thanks to modern gps routing.

You slow down a main through road it puts that traffic right onto residential roads that formerly weren't worth taking and so someone's kid who used to ride their bike in the street has to either stop or risk getting turned into paste.

I live in a state with stringent roadworthiness inspections BTW.

> Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.

Retesting is vital, too. Every 10 years. And if you have something like 3 moving violations you should have to do some community service, and retake the test.

I don't believe in fines on individuals: if the punishment for a crime is a fine, that law only applies to the poor. If you insist on endangering the lives of the people around you, then you get the same inconvenience as anyone else.

Because technology companies know more about their product's capabilities and limitations than a former Fox News host? And because they know there's a risk of mass civilian casualties if you put an LLM in control of the world's most expensive military equipment?

In theory you can export your data from ChatGPT under Settings > Data Controls. In practice, I tried this recently and the download link was broken. Convenient bug I must say.

Make sure you're logged in to chatgpt.com in the same browser you're using to access that link.

How would you navigate to it if you were not?

Don't forget teenagers can be extremely skilled technically. Plus they have a lot of time!

But you're on the right track.

I think of a solution like:

1. Browser does one-time age verification through 3rd party service, without disclosing any details about which sites you'll access.

2. Browser stores your age, signed by that service.

3. When a site requests it the browser passes that signed age over. The site simply has to check if it has a valid signature by a trusted authority's public key.

The browser could even use Palantir in this example - but they would never get any data about what users are accessing.

It'd be best to create a standard for this using wallet apps. You can obtain an age certificate from any trusted provider (decentralized chain-of-trust similar to TLS CAs), which you can then load into any wallet app of your choice on any OS, and use it with any online service which supports the standard. This should use anonymous, unlinkable(!) proofs, with the only certified data being `is_over_age`.

Though I'd prefer the way proposed by Mark Camilleri Gambin (EU politician). Have parents enable Child Mode during device setup, then expose `isMinor = true` to all websites and apps, require a parental control PIN to disable. This is a much better and cleaner solution. Requiring age verification of all adults gets it backwards.

Wouldn't the age verification provider then be able to retain logs of what exact credentials it signed and for whom? And if the certificates are identical for every user, couldn't everyone change the presented certificate for the universal correct one?

Second one is a lot more sensible.

Ummm, i don't think teenagers on average can be extremely skilled.

Unless you think of some extreme outliers. Most of these I met can't READ and follow the step by step procedure.

The US is the largest market for most US companies, so if consumer buying power is erased (e.g. through a treasury default or inflating our way out of the debt) those companies will drop substantially in value.

Potentially that will be the case in actual terms. Likely that will be the case in terms of their growth rate. But (for most) that certainly won't be the case in relative terms - the large US corporations would ride through such a decline taking an even bigger slice of the global pie.

I'll sometimes ask Siri to take me to a local address, and it'll instead pick some random address in a city 2500+ miles away and start routing me there like that's obviously what i wanted

SpaceX can also raise their prices for government launches to pretty much anything and still get business, because they are essentially a monopoly.

So why haven't they already?

I can think of a many possible reasons offhand:

1. They've been in Growth mode, where it's common for companies to prioritize capturing the market over being profitable.

2. They've had no problems with money since proving their effectiveness. They can raise capital at favorable valuations (and hold secondary sales) whenever they want. It has been one of the hottest private stocks that people clamor to own.

3. As a private company whose dominant shareholder is the CEO, nobody can pressure them to raise prices. This typically changes after an IPO.

4. Previous government administrations would likely have resisted paying them much more than they charge the private sector or other governments. The new administration has proven they will do favors for companies that are friendly to them.

5. For awhile it seemed they might soon have viable competition for manned space flight (e.g. Starliner) but only in 2024 did we see how bad those are.

6. The low cost is a point of pride for Musk who liked to prove how much more efficiently he could do spaceflight than NASA.

I think they had no choice but to release that AI before it was ready for prime time. Their search traffic started dropping after ChatGPT came out, and they risked not looking like a serious player in AI.

"Shall we play a game?"

Even the ridiculous 1019 hp Taycan Turbo GT Weissach edition (a 4-door car with no rear seats, such are the compromises made for the track) at best achieved 7:07.55 around the Nurburgring.

A gas 911 GT3 RS with less than half the horsepower laps it in 6:49.3.

The 911 by most measures is the slower car (10.9s 1/4 mile vs 9.2s for the Taycan, 184mph top speed vs 190 etc). The difference is the 911s superior handling and braking and that mostly comes down to the difference in weight.

I wonder how a taycan with only enough cells to run a lap would perform.

I don’t think most automotive folks or enthusiasts (apart from the track crowd) would agree that car handling and chassis tuning can be expressed in a lap time, even if it is nordschleife.

Good handling is certainly somewhat subjective (along the lines of "fun, communicative, begging to be pushed to its limits"). But even when its not about pure numbers, I still haven't seen the Taycan voted best-handling among enthusiast reviewers (except when qualified with "for an EV"). I'm curious what criteria you might be referring to? The "most fun" handling cars still seem to go to the lightweights like the Miata.