I want to see F1 car design be about function/performance above all. I want to see awesome gadgets using insanely clever design. Then ideally that design should influence built items in the rest of the world.

F1 used to be influential in creating and developing high technology. Now it seems to be about gathering high technology from elsewhere so as to meet the insane regulations most efficiently.

But am now in the quadlock system of attaching my phone to anything else.... IE car mounts too. SO quadlock got a bunch of my money.

Maybe I'm a buyer trying to justify my sunk costs, but to Quadlock's credit, once all matched, I think it works well.

And for the 3D printerists, there is a bunch of Quadlock 3D models to help out too.

Here are some projections to support that statement. Supposedly 2084 is peak population.

https://population.gov.au/sites/population.gov.au/files/2025...

I haven't read up on all the assumptions made for those projections. If something unassumed pops up that makes things substantially worse then the population peak would come earlier I guess. But that's a gamble.

In theory that is covered already by laws against physical violence in whatever form they take.

> freedom from employment consequences

This crosses the line into private actions and property. Unless you mean government employees maybe? I don't think you will find many private employers who'd support the idea they'd have to keep employees no matter what they say, privately or publicly as that could lead to significant harm of the business reputation.

You've already got libel, perjury, obscenity, harassment limitations on "free speech". Just accept that it is not perfectly free and the reasons why are generally(feel free to pounce on the exceptions) for societal cohesion.

merriam-webster definition: "the return for the use of a factor in excess of the minimum required to bring forth its service" [0]

Think of those companies that have % take on the output of others by providing a market. Yes, they provide a service, as you say "The rich will sell you things they created".

But the arrangement allows them to extract more than it costs. That extra over and above doesn't provide extra value. It is "rent".

To be clear, at no point have I accused billionaires of illegal acts. Mind you at that scale they can influence what is legal or not, regulated or not, tariffed or not. Example, see Apple's award to Trump for tariff exemptions.

Their acts impact the economy and how money flows.

The accusation being a large chunk of their wealth is via rent than wealth creation that benefits everyone.

Now, to a business person, this is simply good business! Maximising profit on output! But from a society wide economic point of view, there can be too much of a good thing.

Sentiment-wise, the poor and middleclass want to be able to get rich too. But now it seems as though the multibillionaires will make that impossible as they seek to suck up every last dollar.

[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economic%20rent

Edit: flow and shorter... and then added more sorry.

The rich extracting wealth from the poor doesn't create.

Investors buying existing housing stock doesn't create.

Mine it. Make it. Improve it. Brings wealth into existence.

Note that financially large businesses/individuals are a mix of wealth creation and transference.

That one word comment implies a lot of the wealthiest people have not created much wealth in comparison with how much they managed to transfer.

I don't know of an intelligence that will behave so precisely. But then, maybe intelligence needs to be better defined.

See 9/11 for an example of "nobody is going to attack us" being false.

Could the nation slowly step back and generation-by-generation shed their national reputation such that they have no enemies? Maybe.

But that would take a while (generations) without any guarantee and is kind of the opposite of what has happened recently.

So LLMs have no place for me in this regard.

1. Huge scale subsidies like this are effectively a manufacturing attack. This is mean at the level of international politics and yet the world recently seems to be waking up to the idea they were handing over every practice of manufacture to China.

2. On the other hand, while the Chinese car companies are finding their footing they have not yet perfected the bullshit tiered marketing approaches that see relatively cheap to manufacture features gated to "high-equipment level" cars.

For example, now even the cheapest cars can have 360 degree parking cameras. Of course, the Chinese engineering level remains to be seen but many would argue this is competition in the market.

You can choose to make your SSID openly visible or not. It is "shouting" into the wifi space. And it was clearly visible in this case!

But see all other reasons in my previous statement why a Captain of a plane might choose to shut down "contentious" statements.

IE it is nothing to do with the statement itself. It is the time and place. Feel free to fight for a cause anywhere else.

The issue is timing and consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Consider:

Person makes loud free speech statement - which though perfectly legal - is contentious. Person B gets upset and uses their freedom of speech to shout back.

At the pub:

Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they can leave. Usually they at least make space.

The pub can ask the talkers to leave - either one or both, as it is their private property. And if violence occurs Bouncer/Police drag away the violent person without much likelihood of harm to others.

On the plane:

Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they cannot leave! They cannot make space! There may be elderly next to kids of varying ages. There is no bouncer, police is even worse for business and affects everyone on the plane just wanting to get to their destination. Tight constraints mean physical violence is likely to hurt someone unrelated to the conflict.

And so Captains clamp down on contentious statements ASAP to make sure it doesn't escalate that far. You are allowed to make contentious statements, and they are allowed to ask you to leave, because the plane is not public property.

Nobody wants to fly next to the loud nervous talker. Or the crying baby. But people understand these actions are not by choice and so there is tolerance.

Contentious/provocative statements though? That's a choice. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

It is better for everyone involved if the desire to spout views is simply delayed until the flight is over.

And not all of the risks are about moving the cabin. Many of the risks are within the cabin and while some dickhead getting uppity at the pub will get collared by the police, it is a totally different problem while in the air.

So, while in the cabin, don't try to fuck around and find out. No one wants to find out anything. They just want to get to the other end of the trip.

So much this. Australia has ridiculous space compared to population. In comparison to somewhere like Singapore, we have sooo much space.

And yet bureaucracy seems to be trying to kill off most places not a capital city...