Yet the US government can't seem to parade the hundreds of drones they are surely catching with the new operating model?

It seems 100% of the drones they have shot down are US government ones.

Which is it

1) US government is deliberately avoiding the cartel ones

2) US government is completely incompetent and the cartel outmatch the might of the US military

3) The cartel isn't actually using drones

4) The US government have shot down dozens of drones but are keeping quiet about it

Given they have so far managed to shoot down a balloon and a government drone you'll forgive my scepticism.

Not as profitable for robot owners today

People of a certain world outlook will listen to Musk when they'll ignore more enlightened commentators. That's a good thing.

Microsoft came back with a far lower cost offer than they had before, and took the new head out for nice lunches

So it sounds like Munich ditching Microsoft wasn't a principled move, but just a business tactic to get the same software for cheaper.

Either that or decision makers changed from the decision to drop. The first ones valued sovereignty higher but they moved on and the second ones valued it less.

I love how some of the curves go negative

There are no ticks so I assume 0% is on the left edge and not directly over the label.

The regulation needs to get ahead of the product, otherwise you'd be criminalising existing behaviour and that doesn't work

People normalised installing spy doorbells, so every doorstep is centrally available to large organisations who want to do harm (government, amazon, meta, whoever)

It's inconvenient to make people criminals over night with new regulation, but it's by no means impossible to do so.

I can't install a Ring doorbell if it takes a picture of the street outside my house. That was preexisting regulation (about surveillance cameras requiring permits for public spaces). Of course, people who now install Ring doorbells DO often record the street. But that's more a matter of enforcing the law.

You can absolutely start regulating behaviour after the fact. Australia famously bought a bunch of guns back from people who had previously legally bought and owned them, and melted them down. There's no reason you couldn't offer people money in exchange for the surrender of their previously legally purchased surveillance racket goods. You can also frankly just regulate the central service/company out of existence in the case of, say, Ring.

OK you can do a lot of things. It becomes far harder to implement it after it becomes normal

It's easier to ban ring from selling devices in 2010 when nobody had them, then to take them away from millions who feel their personal benefits of not having to get off the couch to see who's at the door outweighs the societal harm.

That's before the arguments about societal benefits (coperganda does well at this). You change the argument from a hypothetical "this could help stop crime" to a concrete example "in this case we found out who robbed little old granny thanks to our surveillance network".

But their willingness to just make stuff up has escalated so far… I don't think copaganda has the effectiveness it once had. It's gotten burned through gratituous abuse.

Helping parents would be useful rather than telling them to "just do it".

The pain in trying to set up fortnite and minecraft online as parents is unsummounted, involving creating half a dozen accounts with different companies just to get some form of control. Far easier to just give them an adult account.

The process to create a child account should be seamless and no harder than creating an adult account.

You don't have to look too far back in history -- look at the supply squeeze during covid, or even just during the Suez closure by the Evergiven.