The anonymous internet is going away -- it is too supportive of crime and various kinds of gray area misconduct, and governments and large corporations were eventually going to do something about that.

Such a degree of anonymity is desirable, but it is not a requirement for a free society. What were things like before the internet? You couldn't anonymously browse billions of pages of information in 1960.

https://seeingmachines.com/understanding-driver-drowsiness-a...

Since July 2022, Driver Drowsiness and Attention Warning (DDAW) systems have been required in all new vehicle types within the European Union (EU). They will be mandatory for all newly registered vehicles from July 2024.

You write:

Maybe Ars is being too rosy-viewed about the causality there, idk. I have no partic feeling one way or the other though I do want to take whatever comfort I can in the notion that the "system of checks and balances" is working.

They are not being rosy about it but you are inferring the wrong lesson from this. There wasn't a judgment or some other finding that the FAA had exceeded their authority and this kind of rule is too broad to be legal: the FAA just decided it was too much trouble to deal with this right now. In the absence of a legal finding about it, they can bring the same rule back next year if they want. This isn't the system of checks and balances working -- the system didn't even get going.

You write:

...there is a price to pay in vigilance, of having to challenge the legality of agency actions if the particular implementation of regulations infringes on constitutional rights.

Is there a constitutional right implicated here? The right to fly planes? It is certainly not a press freedom issue in an obvious way, since it does not target journalism per se -- it has no impact on journalism on foot, on bicycles, &c.

The very broad power of administrative rulemaking held by that agency is unchanged -- and the power of agencies generally, to make law without legislating, without accountability to the electorate, actually has nothing to do with this administration, does it? It actually has nothing to do with any of them. It's something the legislature has allowed to grow and grow over successive administrations, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

A balanced 16-cavity mold costs 3-4x more than a single-cavity mold but only produces 16x the parts, which is why they only make economic sense above 500,000 units.

For example, Toyota builds cars in the USA; and rigorously controls how Toyota USA builds cars in the USA. That's actually kind of the point -- from an industrial policy standpoint, it is valuable and useful if companies bring their technology and approaches here and administer them with their knowhow.

Regarding government contracts, it could probably come down to some percentage of ownership or the way control is administered; but many defense companies are publicly traded and that means they can be owned in part by foreign entities (people or corporations).

The relationship between companies can be a complex matter. Do they have to be wholly owned subsidiaries, really?

Free trade does result in the best prices but it has other, negative effects, and it is when we think as policy makers -- as citizens, not consumers or business owners -- that we are accountable for those effects.

Case: 2:2025cv04276

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2025cv0427...

This is really ridiculous. There are many successful EU vendors of defense technology to the US military. Safran, Schmidt & Bender, Heckler & Koch, Saab, Glock, Fabrique National -- there is a long list. The USA has built real partnerships in these areas.

One amusing example is the C7 and C8. These are AR-15 (M16) variants made by Colt Canada and adopted by the militaries of the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway; and used by special forces in the UK.

Where are you getting your information from, that the US wouldn't allow wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market?

Arms trading with China is probably not a good idea at all.

Europeans not taking care of themselves has been "undermining the relationship".

A nuclear submarine is one with nuclear propulsion, not nuclear weapons (just like a diesel-electric submarine is one with a diesel engine and batteries, not diesel weapons).