Misleading headline, not sure if the article is misleading because it is paywalled, but so far, these are drones used as targets for anti-drone practice.
> Naoki said that the AirKamuy 150 could carry around three pounds, which is just enough to carry a small amount of supplies or munitions to a target and it’s not hard to imagine swarms of incendiary cardboard drones slamming into targets in the near future.
"so far" is for the next five minutes or so.
It's a bit silly to claim a misleading headline when you can't read the article. https://archive.is/5Pqg6
Furthermore, we shouldn't even be looking to the Supreme Court at all for this. Congress needs to define the laws around AI and copyright. The Supreme Court is likely avoiding cases in the hope that the legislature gets its act together.
Nowadays the optical atomic clocks that can be used in vehicles are many orders of magnitude less accurate than those that are restricted to a well protected laboratory environment.
If anyone is wondering, we aren't yet to the point of having an atomic clock in the dashboard of your Toyota. But they have been reduced to ~suitcase size. Example if one being tested in a Navy ship:
The microchip miniature atomic clocks are not optical atomic clocks, but old-school microwave atomic clocks.
They are orders of magnitude less accurate than even portable optical atomic clocks and the difference is much greater in comparison with SOTA laboratory cesium clocks or hydrogen masers, which are again orders of magnitude less stable than the best laboratory optical atomic clocks.
However, these miniature atomic clocks are much smaller and cheaper than better atomic clocks and there are applications where something better than an OCXO-based quartz clock is desired.
Indeed, this clock, which uses iodine absorption cells to provide the reference frequency, is one of the kinds of already existing portable optical atomic clocks to which I was referring.
The best laboratory optical clocks, which use ion traps or optical lattices with neutral atoms, have a higher accuracy by up to 6 orders of magnitude, which makes much harder for the system that stabilizes the length of the laser cavity to keep up with it.
Minute length changes that would not matter for a less accurate iodine clock would cause unacceptable frequency shifts in a SOTA optical clock. Therefore such optical clocks are much more sensitive to their environment.
Substitution with lower cost items happens when prices go up and that is factored into CPI data. I’m not sure how the basket of goods has changed over the past year, but substitution of goods does happen when prices go up.
Corporate profits grew throughout the tariffs, if they were absorbing the majority of the tariff cost instead of passing it on, it would’ve affected publicly traded company earnings, but it hasn’t.
If the alleged people actually said this, and they wanted to "maintain high prices", then why would they oppose more building? If they believed "supply and demand don't work at all", then more supply wouldn't hurt their goal of maintaining high prices.
A former trustee in the inner-ring suburb in which I live owns and manages rental housing throughout the municipality and is a vocal opponent of building new housing, and of the argument that supply and demand functions in the housing market. I could screenshot him for you, but you have no idea who he is, so: just take my word for it, these aren't "alleged" people. They're a major force in local politics around the country, which is where this fight is primarily being fought.
Leveraged investors in real estate become incredibly "conservative" really fast - not politically but in the "don't ever change anything holy shit I'm on a knife edge" even if the changes would be a net benefit for them.
For the same reason that NIMBYs care so much about urban trees or spotted owls. They don't actually give a shit about them, they just are willing to say or do anything to sabotage the process of increasing housing supply.
I'm as big a YIMBY as you'll find, and urban trees are really important to making a city a nice place to live. There's no contradiction to those positions - just, you know, build more housing and plant more trees. (Spotted owls, of course, have nothing to do with urbanism, so I don't know how they got dragged in here.)
Being a NIMBY I want to live in the neighbourhood I bought a house in, not the one someone who can leave with a months notice feels like turning it into.
Being a homeowner, you get a title to your lot, not your entire neighborhood. You have no legal claim on your neighbor's home. If you want a legal claim on your neighbor's home, join an HOA. Or just buy it.
I'd be willing to bet you every last dollar on the planet that if you read your deed, you will find zero claims to any particular zoning. Zoning is not a transferable property right. It can be changed for any reason at any time.
I’d love to take that bet. My deed (in Texas) states that my lot is subject to the rules of the subdivision which include a number of zoning style restrictions. (They’re called “deed restrictions” and are very common AFAIK.)
The subdivision rules are changeable only with a supermajority vote. I believe the city (Houston in my case) is prohibited by the state from unilaterally changing them.
(I wouldn’t mind more free property rights!!! I find TX “liberty” is often biased towards $$$)
I would gladly see that bet through because that's not zoning, even if its effects are the same as zoning. Subdivision rules are a restrictive covenant (much like how HOAs work). Zoning is not a restrictive covenant, it is by definition a municipally-reserved restriction on land uses, and can be changed at the discretion of the jurisdictional authorities.
I've actually encouraged NIMBYs to use those HOA-style restrictive covenants if they're so adamant on their "zoning" never changing, because a restrictive covenant is actually a volunatory restriction. A city cannot come in and remove them willy nilly (they do in special cases like red-lining, but it is a politically arduous process). Someone with a restrictive covenant by definition has more protection from their neighborhood changing than they would if they just relied on zoning.
The problem is, nobody likes restrictive covenants, and they don't like the HOA-like structures that govern them, and they really don't like the punchable-faced people that seek power in those kinds of organizations.
... with a vote. And subject to the takings clause.
The government can also just take your deed and property, again subject to the takings clause, so long as they pay you back. Or claim someone was slinging crack there or something and not pay you back.
If you're including things subject to the democratic process all the above is on the table.
Also plenty of things written into the deed don't mean shit. It's quite common to read a deed that says something like, in more fluffed terms "no black people allowed." This got baked into lots of deeds back in the day and never got changed because removing covenants to a deed is usually next to impossible. It doesn't mean dick because again the government can simply add or subtract by fiat what your deed actually means.
What your deed is and isn't is a lot closer to how zoning works than you think. Ranchers found this out when their transferrable private property grazing rights tracing back to the very founding era of the USA got usurped by the government and ultimately the BLM who turned around and actually said they're public federal property (which resulted in things like, the Bundy standoff).
If your neighborhood's zoning isn't in your deed, how are you going to claim it was taken from you?
Zoning is a restriction on your rights...when they are lifted, you are gaining more tangible rights, not losing them. If anything, the takings clause should have applied to properties where zoning was introduced...not where it was removed.
It's a beautiful state of affairs when owners of property can collude for their interests with almost no restrictions, but worker unions are almost entirely defanged.
Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye when housing prices inflate $300,000 because existing homeowners are doing their fucking hardest to make sure that no new homes get built.
And then a decade of that later, all the people bitching about immigration will be wondering why the country's demographics resemble that of a nursing home, and why the tax base and the social safety net has collapsed.
Hospital wait times in Canada, Australia and the UK are _years_ for elective procedures. I had a health scare three years ago and got put on the public waiting list. I still get a message every 6 months to remind me that I'm on the waiting list.
I've still to advance far enough up the queue to get a date booked.
It can always collapse more. Ask anyone who lived through an actual economic collapse. (As opposed to the kinds of minor corrections that the West has seen over the past few decades.)
Your imagination is very limited if you can't think of what the long-term consequence for a country with an average age of 41.6, a fertility rate of 1.25, and a huge political block of nativists who can't do basic arithmetic, are asking for something incredibly stupid, are getting exactly what they want, good and hard.
You solve a housing shortage by... Building more housing. Not by driving young people who want to do work out of your community.
Destroy your society today so it doesn't get potentially destroyed in 30 years is certainly a take.
>You solve a housing shortage by... Building more housing.
It's not housing. It's roads. Hospitals. Schools. Sewers. Power lines. Everything needs to be rebuilt. That means that the immigrants who are coming in must be engineers, doctors, teachers, tradies. Instead we get uber drivers and IT consultants. There aren't enough qualified people in the world to keep up with current immigration to the west. The only solution is to lower immigration until the ratio of qualified people coming in matches (or hopefully exceeds) the ratio of qualified people already here. Anything else lowers living standards and makes a right wing reaction inevitable.
> Destroy your society today so it doesn't get potentially destroyed in 30 years is certainly a take.
Immigrants coming in today aren't 'destroying society'.
And it's not 'potentially'. It's certainly. Nativists have no answers to it, and if they actually presented the dilemma of 'We can keep Pablo out, and also anyone currently under the age of 40 will have to work until they are 75', not a single person would give their ideas a moment of thought.
> It's roads. Hospitals. Schools. Sewers. Power lines. Everything needs to be rebuilt.
Why does it need to be rebuilt on anything beyond a regular depreciation schedule in a steady-population situation?
And by the way - Canada needs to invite at least half a million people a year in order to maintain the population at a steady-state. That number is the table stakes.
>And by the way - Canada needs to invite at least half a million people a year in order to maintain the population at a steady-state. That number is the table stakes.
In 2025 total deaths in Canada were 334,699, totals births were 368,928.
> In 2025 total deaths in Canada were 334,699, totals births were 368,928.
If you think that's not a problem, stop cherrypicking numbers, and look at Canada's population pyramid. And then tell me what will happen as the big fat middle, that starts at 25... ages out of work. Do you think that little sliver of 0-24s are going to be holding everyone else up?
Those are the numbers you need to be looking at. Oh, and emigration isn't zero, but someone leaving the country isn't counted as a death on the census. 120,000 people emigrated in 2025.
In that case we aren't in a steady state population case and we need to build schools, hospitals, public transport, water, power etc.
Which means that we need stop importing low skill labor in the IT and services industry and move to high skill labor.
The developing world unfortunately doesn't produce enough for the current immigration levels in the west. Ergo we must lower immigration until the ratio of high skill migrants is equal or higher than that of the native population.
I think this us a fair feeling. One chooses a house based in part on the area as the specifics of the house itself. Wanting the neighborhood to remain unchanged is a reasonable desire.
Unfortunately, as much as you desire it, it's not something you can control. Neighborhoods change all the time. That good school you moved to be close to can decline, people with the wrong politics can move in next door, the convenient mall may close.
Yes, local politics gives you a vote. But of course we all get the same vote, homeowners and wannabe homeowners.
So, I think your want is valid, alas though you have no rights to your neighborhood and so your want is just what you want.
Of course you should stand up for your wants. But wants are not rights. So it's equal to everyone else's wants.
I'm upvoting you because your desire is not invalid. However, and I don't mean this perjorativly, your wants don't legally count for much. Just as much as any other person.
Part of the problem (or the solution depending on what side you stand on) is that only residents get a say, and often you find that the renters become just as nimby as the owners, especially if rent controls or other advantages are in place.
And those outside have a very hard time voting where they want to live but don't.
(The old solution was to make a new city that was like you wanted, with blackjack and hookers, hell forget the city we'll just build the strip!)
What data are you using? It is hard to get solid numbers pre 1975. I looked at SSA Wage index which has 1970 at $6,186. Adjust using PCE, that is only $42,808 in present dollars.
In either case, IMO, +-10% over 60 years should just be considered flat. Calling it flat is probably generous considering how inflation has affected durable goods vs necessities. We can buy more appliances now, but places to put them have never been more expensive relative to income.
The Human Rights Index for the United States dropped from 0.93 to 0.83 in 2025, which is concerning. Meanwhile, China scores 0.18, which is significantly worse. For comparison, countries that score higher than China include Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
Globally, China is 6th percentile on the Human Rights Index. The United States is 65th percentile. That puts the U.S. well below most developed countries, but it's nowhere close to "just as bad."
I would expect China limiting the movement of their rural populations from moving into cities might be a big factor.
Also it seems to end in 2025 before Iran started killing protesters in mass. Glancing around the index in question is very focused on civil liberties vs financial and life attainment in others.
Iran was not a haven of freedom before 2025. Women could get stoned for not wearing a burqa or attending men’s volleyball matches. Scoring Iran higher than China at any point in the past couple decades is ridiculous.
- The detention of 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, forced labor, and mass surveillance in Xinjiang. The destruction of Tibetan society and culture. The only comparable violation of human rights on this scale in the other countries is potentially Russia's war in Ukraine.
- China does not have competitive elections or an independent judiciary. The other countries do have these institutions to some extent, though deeply flawed and authoritarian.
- There is no freedom of religion in China or Iran. Russia persecutes some religious minorities, but tolerates different religions. Venezuela has constitutional protections for freedom of religion.
- There is no freedom of association in China. Independent trade unions, NGOs, and professional organizations are heavily suppressed and censored. These exist to a greater extent in the other countries.
- There is no freedom of speech in China. Political dissent is forbidden. All major media outlets are state-owned. Large parts of the internet are censored. Private conversations are monitored proactively. The other countries persecute speech, but in a less comprehensive, more retroactive way.
Gun Control legislation is plenty slow to move through courts as well. The California magazine limits passed in 1999, it is sitting at the Supreme Court, waiting now 26 years later.
The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911, and it took 111 years to overturn (Bruen). So gun control cases move slowly like everything else.
Yes, third paragraph: "The shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson ..." who was killed by Mangione with a 3D printed gun. Did you forget who the killer was?
I think there is a misunderstanding as you are stating the same point I am making. Either way, no point in further arguing this. There wasn't enough fear before the Thompson killing. If a ghost gun killed some plebeian nobody, meh. But a business magnate? Horrible! We need to do something! NOW! The wealthy have immense power and this is that power being projected in form of fear of the armed common man.
CEO's are scared, and not just the ones in health insurance. Look at what recently happened to Sam Altman where someone hurled a molotov cocktail at his home. After the Thompson killing I was in a meeting with a CEO who's net worth is in the upper 9 digits who was himself concerned for his safety (not in health insurance). He mentioned talking to a security firm and spoke of others in his circle who are also concerned and increasing security as well. They are scared. They are taking action.
reply