Maybe I'm not a person, but I almost always pick one of the cheaper if not cheapest option. Rarely, if ever, do I care enough to get the best of anything...

He sets a false dichotomy to protect himself from criticism. Zoning/building codes being too strict and monopolies existing in that market aren’t incompatible.

It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of money behind this abundance movement or whatever, so that’s something to take into account when reading this stuff.

The Catholic Church actually initially funded Copernicus and was interested in his findings, but this was the reformation and counter-reformation, so that context is extremely important as to why their stance changed.

What they did to Giordano Bruno, on the other hand, is a massive stain on the church.

Either way, it doesn't matter what his motives are. He's not Congress.

Also, bike traffic and vehicle through traffic are separated on different networks, so a conflicts are minimized.

People conduct science, and a lot of those people don't understand statistics that well. This quote from nearly 100 years ago still rings true in my experience:

"To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of."

- Ronald Fisher (1938)

Regardless, the idea that frequentist stats requires a stronger background in mathematics is just flat out silly though, not even sure what you mean by that.

The article states that AI will never reach human intelligence, which LeCun defines as "reasoning, planning, persistent memory, and understanding the physical world."

I would argue that's still an extremely narrow definition of human intelligence. Even ignoring semantics current AIs cannot do any of those things, and to my lights never will for the same reasons LeCun says.

I think the difference of opinion here is between science and technology. Too many people in my opinion take the latter to be a synonym for the former.

Judging by your phrasing, your interpretation of antitrust stems from Robert Bork and has been the mainstream thought for a long time. Read The Antitrust Paradox by him to see how we got here and why the courts have acted how they have for the past 40 years.

The current chair of the FTC, Lina Khan, was actually an academic prior to working for the government and has a long paper trail of how she interprets the law. In short (and extremely oversimplified), it modernizes the Brandeis interpretation that bigness is bad for society in general, regardless of consumer pricing. EX: If Apple were a country its GDP would surpass the GDPs of all but four nations. They argue this is bad flat out.

Can't say it was the only cause, but Khan's paper, Amazon's Antitrust Paradox - note the reference to Bork's book - is partially what resparked a renewed interest in antitrust for the modern era if you want to check it out.