It seems to me that in the case of AI (as with many other modern technologies), you rely on vendor/creator support and updates to stay relevant, so the ‘next’ model matters more than the current one, and we have no idea whose next model will be open (and whose won’t).

I purposely avoided comparing Clinton to anyone else, so whatever horrible things Trump has done is just changing the subject. I personally believe that neither of them has committed (anything approximating) the most abhorrent acts by a POTUS, but that's a different conversation.

It is believed that the Kuwaiti aircraft did not have its IFF transponder turned on (IFF is and has always been standard equipment on the F-18).

Not the user you were replying to, but they clearly asked why it was done at high-level, and without a vote; you are completely focusing on the latter, and ignoring the former.

I am not sure I agree with that comment, but you shouldn't straw-man it.

These applications of the pardon power have been controversial, but never successfully challenged.

If anything, this OP demonstrates that the EU regulations are futile (though that may be an overstatement).

Every anti-spam regulation or law has this provision. The problem is that laws and regulations are rarely enforced, especially against people outside the jurisdiction which created the rule. Look at how infrequently GDPR is enforced outside the EU; it isn't even enforced rigorously against entities clearly violating it inside the EU!

The success rate is low, but the problem is that it's an arms race, where every competitor is spamming, so each new entrant (or non-spammer) must try to spam even harder to compete. If one elects not to spam, they are at a competitive disadvantage. If there is an anti-spam law or regulation, this just benefits competitors from other jurisdictions, where it is difficult to enforce the rule.