It was more than interesting 100+ years ago -- it was the subject of wildly inconsistent, often fear-based (or incumbent-industry-based) regulation.
A vetoed 1896 Pennsylvania law would have required drivers who encountered livestock to "disassemble the automobile" and "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes until [the] equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified". The Locomotive on Highways Act of 1865 required early motorized vehicles to be preceded by a person on foot waving a red flag or carrying a red lantern and blowing a horn.
It might not quite look like that today, but wild-eyed, fear-based regulation as AI use grows is a real possibility. And at least some of it will likely seem just as silly in hindsight.
For more than thirty years, the speed limit for cars in Britain was 4mph - a self-propelled vehicle travelling faster than walking pace was obviously unconscionably dangerous.
To celebrate the raising of the speed limit to a daring 12mph, a group of motorists organised a drive from London to Brighton. At the time, driving 54 miles in a single day was seen as an audacious feat and few people imagined that such a great distance could be travelled in such complicated and newfangled contraptions without mechanical incident.
For decades, the car was seen as a plaything for the wealthy that served no practical purpose. The car only became an important mode of transportation after very many false starts and against strong opposition.
There's no standard definition of what constitutes the press.
Now, if the question is some flavor of: Do Hacker News posts and comments enjoy First Amendment protections generally described as "freedom of the press?" Absolutely.
The press isn't a special class under 1a; "or of the press;" in the First Amendment simply means you're free to write and publish -- not just speak -- without interference from the government.
You seem to be approaching the question as something related to censorship. That's not what I meant.
From a less legalese definition of "The Press", and a more of a social function one, what do you think? Let's assume a hypothetical scenario where censorship is not something to worry about (in this hypothetical scenario, it is not being applied and also not a general concern of the population). Down to the basics, what is supposed to be. What would be your thoughts on it?
In most markets with state lotteries, it's easier to pass a lottery than a tax increase; they're typically sold as a way to fund schools or some other public good. It's an inefficient revenue capture in the sense that there are higher costs (marketing, printing lottery tix, profit for the lottery operator, etc.) but you can get it across the finish line and not have to worry about your opponent calling you out for raising taxes.
California's lottery, converted to a tax and using topline revenue numbers, would be ~$235 annually per resident.
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a 501(c)(3) non-profit non-partisan research institute, exists to advance policies that put the American people first. Its Office for Fiscal and Regulatory Analysis (OFRA) aims to make government policy easier to understand, reform, and reorient for the good of the American people. OFRA's open-source tools help policy professionals simplify and streamline legislative design and rulemaking. Its analyses highlight major budgetary risks and opportunities. Its voter education products enable the average American to understand the policy impact on their lives. All of OFRA's work is built to be accessible, transparent, and reproducible.
Using Google's GDELT to analyze velocity and sentiment around public-policy/political news. Objectives: develop a taxonomy of news-event types and their behavior; use that taxonomy to test faster/better time to market with responses; ultimately determine which scenarios, if any, can be predicted.
1. Foreign entities are also investing in land that is strategically or tactically important -- agricultural land is a good example of the former; land near military bases an example of the latter. China has demonstrated a willingness to do both.
2. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. The Constitution provides no power for the federal government to acquire land without just compensation, which courts have regularly held to mean fair market value. Put another way: The feds can likely devise a path for buying your land, but can't outright nationalize it. Changing that is not a matter of presidential decree or even a law by Congress; it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which is an extraordinarily heavy political and policy lift.
I still see no issue, the government can always buy it out at fair price, whatever it is, and it can just print money or easily issue debt to fund that.
I've run my own consulting agency for 20+ years and this tracks. It's more organized and incremental-product-improvement oriented than what I do, but there's a lot of wisdom here. Well done!
People seem to handle it very differently, according to my doc. I never had issues while taking Mounjaro or Synjardy (a prescription pill for diabetes management with similar side effects) alone, but the two together meant I could count on a couple of bad days a week.
Sidebar: Mounjaro changed my life. I'd been very diabetic (300 units of insulin a day) for years on end. Taking that much insulin, my normally large frame got very large indeed. A couple of months into the Mounjaro and I was off insulin; a year into it and I was down 75 lbs and healthier than I'd been in 20 years.
A vetoed 1896 Pennsylvania law would have required drivers who encountered livestock to "disassemble the automobile" and "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes until [the] equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified". The Locomotive on Highways Act of 1865 required early motorized vehicles to be preceded by a person on foot waving a red flag or carrying a red lantern and blowing a horn.
It might not quite look like that today, but wild-eyed, fear-based regulation as AI use grows is a real possibility. And at least some of it will likely seem just as silly in hindsight.