There are commercially available drones that can carry a payload of high-single-digit to low-double-digit kilograms for at least 10km.[1] They fly low enough and are small enough to avoid most radar.

Their use in cross border smuggling of weapons and drugs is well documented[2]; interception rate is low enough that they can make multiple runs before being downed, and they can pay back their purchase cost with only a few successful runs. Typical concept of operations is similar to manned ground crossings, but with drones covering the most dangerous 5-10km of actually crossing the border: a team on one side loads them up and sends them to a team on the other side, with both having a LOT of real estate to hide in because of the drone's range.

(I work on counter drone EW, and border-control customers are under intense pressure to get this under control.)

[1] Just from DJI, see e.g. the Matrice 400 [https://enterprise.dji.com/mobile/matrice-400/specs], with 6kg payload and approximately zero purchase controls; or the T25 [https://ag.dji.com/mobile/t25p/specs], with >20kg of payload capacity, and even in restrictive regulatory regimes only requiring a shell crop spraying company to buy.

[2] https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/article-1183896

This is all true, but is completely consistent with your parent post's claim that he's good at building unicorn companies.

From the post:

"Because we are focused on building a Driver and not a vehicle, we’ve designed a versatile, integrated autonomous driving system that can be adapted to various platforms and use cases over time. Our versatile hardware approach allows us to reconfigure our sensors and generalize our AI to meet each platform's unique needs—whether it is the Ojai or the Hyundai IONIQ 5—providing the Waymo Driver an optimal view of its surroundings while streamlining for efficiency."

ie this is a sensor+software package for any vehicle that they install on.

My understanding of the text is that, to get this to run on the existing fleet, they'd need to go into the shop for sensor/computer replacement, but the text isn't explicit about that.

"The full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." (emphasis mine)

i.e. you are required to have a good reason not to do it.

Can you start actually reading what you quote? "The implications must be understood and weighed" does not mean "you are required to have a good reason not to do it". I can know of the Message-ID field, understand what it's used for, and carefully weigh the possible lack of interoperability against the effort required, concluding that I'm too lazy to do it right now. I have then understood and carefully weighed the implications before choosing a different course, but I don't have a good reason to.

Words mean things, especially in standard texts. You can't just carelessly rewrite sentences using not-quite-synonyms like you're doing here.

Oh, and that "must" is not a "MUST". Had the text said "The full implications MUST be understood ..." it would have been a proper requirement by the standard, but this lower-case "must" is just normal part of prose and not the magical "MUST" word which formally imposes a requirement.

> Host services elsewhere, and ignore claims that a country's laws extend beyond its borders

The moment you want to collect money from people in a country, their laws extend to you. You do not get to export electronics to France and ignore their RF spectrum allocations, for example.

That article is making quite a stretch from "the laws have exceptions for intelligence agencies, police, and the military" to "EU politicians will use those exceptions for themselves". It does this with zero evidence.

You did not ask about driver's licenses. You asked about "document I have on me".

Many people in many countries carry their national ID card in instances where Americans would carry their driver's license.

(And, to be clear, if you are American and drive, your driver's license contains your address.)

In 2008-9 Republicans did not even make the pretense of Obama being a threat to democracy. (Which would have been absurd in a way it isn't for Trump, who tried to overthrow an election he lost.)

I remember when some lady called Obama "Muslim" (in the same tone of voice as she'd say "demon" or something) and Mitt Romney took the microphone from her and said "no, no, we disagree politically but he's a good man."

Shows how poorly those politicians understood the constituency they were fomenting. He was boo'd for it by people that had come to see him specifically, and about 15 years later, republican voters built a scaffold outside the Capital they were breaking into while chanting about hanging the Republican vice president.

I feel like American politicians often play with fire without understanding its nature as something that burns.

They did a bit more than "criticize the government".

Why do you think USAID of all groups was involved in election meddling? Their involvement in US foreign policy is usually along the lines of PR and sometimes being used as cover.

That was not, in fact, the point of USAID. Nor its function in reality.