I don't think _every post_ whining about the lies of the health authorities has a libertarian "fuck everyone else" subtext.

It seems to me that the original misinformation on this subject has caused a continued belief that masks are not helpful in reducing transmission. Initial public health recommendations cannot easily be walked back. Once the meme is sufficiently embedded, it's nearly impossible to dislodge.

Not sure if something has changed, but I spent the better part of 3 years taking my electric skateboard on planes regularly.

Biggest issue I had was occasionally, they would look at it funny going through security and give it extra screening.

Fits pretty well in the overhead too, especially laying upside down, so bags can be stowed above it.

Battery size is the issue. There is, essentially, a 100-watt hour limit. Anything over that and you need explicit airline approval, and you probably won’t get it. And if you do, TSA might not care.

I suppose it depends on your neighborhood, but I don't recall even once being hindered by a parked scooter in SF.

The sidewalk hazards I _do_ encounter (in the Mission), are tent encampments, open drug use, and (occasionally violent) crazy people.

I'd much prefer we prioritize those issues.

Yeah but those are hard... Snark aside, the demographic of this problem will be important I’m sure.

If "transportation is a right" means approximately, "everyone has access to affordable ridesharing", I don't think capping surge pricing yields this outcome.

Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access.

In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.

> In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.

This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?

I suppose my axiom is that "free market price" == "fair value". On this basis, a price ceiling is _unfair_ for both:

• the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less).

Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.

The bill imposes criminal penalties -- Section 230 does not shield platforms from liability under federal criminal law.

The bill also carves out exceptions weakening Section 230 protections.

[1] https://www.eff.org//deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

In Arizona,

> 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

(https://azbikelaw.org/jaywalking-in-arizona/)

Ignorance of IP laws would help the developing economy, while hurting the developed economy. Copying is cheap, original invention is expensive, and developed countries have more to lose.

In a somewhat relevant WTO dispute between US and China,

"The International Intellectual Property Alliance, a coalition of U.S. entertainment and software industry groups, has claimed piracy in China costs them more than $3.7 billion in lost sales." [1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-wto/china-u-s-t...

While I'm not saying that is a lie, anyone can claim anything.

I can claim piracy in China costs me 18 billion dollars.

Also I think it's an absurd argument that just because someone pirated your content that they would necessarily buy it. A lot of content is pirated specifically because they think it's not worth buying.

I believe the corporate sponsor deserves credit (and protection) for work created under its direction.

The problem is that the Constitution specifies "exclusive rights for a limited time", which the supreme court appears to have interpreted as _any finite timespan_ [1].

Of course, that only establishes an upper bound. congress is free to introduce legislation to weaken current protections.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft#Supreme_Cou...

I don't think they "deserve" it. I do think we'd be wise to incentivise IP creation though, which the credit and protection of IP creation does. Though I'm not a fan of the current lengthy timespan.

Leg room can be purchased, if you're willing to spend more. Airlines attempt to satisfy both those who prefer leg room (premium economy), and those who prefer cost savings (economy).

In my experience, the TSA experience is consistently inefficient, with (occasionally severe) bottlenecks. But more frustrating than inefficiency is a sense of apathy radiated by many TSA agents.

Whereas the airlines compete to serve us, the TSA feels vaguely like a slaughterhouse, in which we are the livestock.

Aside from energy efficiency, the semi would be an attractive vector to introduce fully autonomous driving:

1. Feasibility: Many trucking routes avoid some of the most complex driving tasks (e.g. dealing with pedestrians, city traffic).

2. Labor Cost: In commuter travel, the driver _is_ the cargo, so the utility gain is offset:

  utility = cost(operation) - cost(occupancy)

For shipping, in contrast, there is no occupancy requirement, so the gain is greater:

  utility = cost(operation)

However, if the truck is autonomous, then DOT restrictions on hours of service for a driver no longer applies. So, the semi drives a longer day: requiring a bigger battery and longer charge times.