Offline-only, no advertising allowed.

Casinos and bookies only stay in business because most gamblers lose. So even gamblers who win do so ultimately at the expense of gamblers who lose.

Successful investments are positive sum. They create new value.

One way to regulate a vice is to completely ban advertising it.

Another is to make it inconvenient to access - offline only, away from schools, places of worship, commercial areas, or other places people congregate.

https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/china-alread...

Is there a study that identifies which regulations are unnecessary and how much removing them would save?

The wind doesn't stop blowing at night.

> batteries won't solve all power needs

Citation please.

In 2025 I calculated it would cost only a year of German GDP for batteries to power Germany for 6 months. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45443098

That's an absurd amount of batteries that would never be needed. And batteries have only gotten cheaper since then.

40% of all global shipping is used for fossil fuels. [1]

10% of the energy in a barrel of crude oil is used to refine it. [2]

I'm not even counting the energy cost of crude oil extraction, pipeline leaks, hauling gasoline, diesel and LPG to its final destination, or the million other places where energy is lost.

1. https://cleantechnica.com/2026/06/16/shipping-freight-energy...

2. https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/the-energy-cost-of-petrol-pr...

Alternatively, skyrocketing home prices meant companies had to offer higher and higher salaries to retain employees in a competitive labor market. If there had been enough housing perhaps salaries wouldn't be as high.

Even police officers and other public employees in the Bay Area make more money than the national median. It's mostly because of the high cost of living, and that is mostly because of expensive housing.

The actual reason is neither of those things. It's because not enough housing was built.

Leaving that aside I'm quite puzzled about something.

"Making everyone poor is fairer to the poor" is a curious idea that I've seen you express several times on HN recently. The first time I read it I thought you were being sardonic, but you sound quite earnest.

Given your previous opposition to communism and socialism I wonder why you have apparently changed your beliefs.

You're probably right about the rest. I don't understand how prices can rise when salaries fall. Who's paying the higher prices?

I smell smoke before I see it. Useful if there's a forest fire up ahead.

Burning rubber or smoke from the engine is an indicator of a mechanical issue.

> you can't drive with only lidar.

Nobody said you could. This is a strawman.

Tesla stans are the only ones trying to convince everyone you can only drive with cameras. Everyone else is pretty united on the usefulness of multiple inputs.

What does that mean?

> dose it cost more than the driver ?

No. That's the whole reason the field of self-driving exists. It will become cheaper than the driver.

> One liner sounds cool but please back it up with something

I don't feel like looking for links right now. You can disagree with my opinion and move on.

Previous discussion on this topic on HN. I don't feel like searching for it now, you are welcome to.

I don't know what you're saying about imagination.

Maybe I should've said "xenophobic" instead of "racist". The point stands.

It's interesting you said "shame on you" to me (and someone else as well) - a person who used a slightly inaccurate word to describe a bad thing - instead of to the person actually doing a bad thing.

Think of what that says about your priorities. What do you actually want to be?