How does this benefit taxpayers

Because shut up, that's how:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

This costs millions. How do entitlements that cost trillions benefit taxpayers?

That's whataboutism, you're dodging the parent question.

I have access to a car and bottle of bourbon, but there are laws that restrict me from drinking and driving.

they don't restrict you, you can always drink and drive. you may or may not, depending on your luck, suffer the legal consequences of your actions.

tell that to the cops that’ll pull you over.

ignition interlock device market continues to grow, as some states are attempting to require them in all new cars.

I agree with some of the other commenters that the author’s tone is a more important discussion topic than his observations.

what does a movie theater screen do that a phone screen can’t?

Not if you don’t set your country’s children up for success.

Top of the line AI without educated, healthy, economically-stable children means no future for the country or our society.

You are right. I'm not saying I like the way things are trending. But I also think setting up our children means making sure they're prepared for the future. I don't think AI will ever replace the importance of education.

That is always going to be a personal race. You can get in the currents of education, but your success will always depend on your own paddling.

I don’t personally set education standards for today’s youth or budgets to invest in the country’s youth.

The United States is falling behind in both.

Agreed. Sam Altman’s vision for UBI is basically “bring back company towns.”

Yes, they have a choice. Profits are more important than values.

Right, but it should be acknowledged that this is likely an amoral decision on Facebook's part (or more charitably, a pragmatic decision) not an immoral one.

The governments that forced these changes in the first place are of course acting immorally, that's not in dispute.

I don’t think that’s what amoral means. It’s not malicious but doing something that hurts others just because you gain money from it isn’t amoral just because you’re not doing it just to inflict pain.

Hyperbolic example: If your boss tells you to kill the next customer or you won’t get paid, doing the killing isn’t amoral.

Good point. Even if Facebook is being threatened they're still ultimately responsible for their actions. Maybe amoral isn't the right word to describe this.

I guess it just feels like a lot to me to expect a company to break the law on purpose, even in the service of a greater moral duty. But maybe it shouldn't. Obviously if they did pull out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia over this rather than comply that would be a laudable stand.

Depending on the country, for sure yes. Working for Russia military is definitely immoral IMHO

The purpose of every military in the world is hurting people. It's, like, the whole point of their existence, either hurting people right now or preparing to hurt people in the future.

Hurting people that are invading you isn’t necessarily immoral, hurting other people to gain money or land is.

I don’t have issues with the hurting part, it’s a very strange thing to pick on. Are you contributing to the invader, imperialist side or are you contributing to defending, resisting oppression? It’s obviously different moral calculus.

Which is why context and reasons for specific actions matter.

Shoving my child is sometimes/generally immoral. Shoving my child to get them away from an oncoming bus is moral, and on a swing often encouraged.

More on topic: Hurting others can absolutely be moral for the greater good/if it saves more people. What that is is less clear, and the reasoning can be (and frequently is) abused through lying, but I think it's fairly clear cut in the Russia/Ukraine case referenced.

Facebook acquiscing to dictatorships that block human rights organizations is immoral.

It is.

It’s not as bas as the time they helped organise a genocide though, so there is that.

If we want to take Congress earnestly, heavier users of roads should pay heavier taxes.

You could argue urban drivers are currently subsidizing rural drivers because they travel fewer miles in a year.

My opinion is this should be up to each State, and that this is federal government overreach.

How many miles of federal roads do you drive in a week?