At lest swing-states change from time to time.
Without the electoral college all candidates will only need to campaign in the largest cities, and will be free to ignore things that primarily affect low-density areas(like farmers).

Personally, I like being able to eat and do not want that to depend on politicians not starting wars with our food providers after they tax farming out of the country.

"Military significance
Hiroshima had been a military center since 1868 and was home to many military and munitions facilities."

"Military port: Nagasaki was a major military port and home to two Mitsubishi military factories
Shipbuilding: Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest shipbuilding and repair centers
Naval ordnance: Nagasaki was an important producer of naval ordnance"

Those sound pretty militarily important to me...

Bombing civilians was SOP as part of WW2. London was frequently bombed, for example.

One of the issues was the loss of fluid during the surgery allowed a bubble inside the skull that caused the brain to pull away from the implant when the bubble passed between them.

From what I have seen in a youtube video(where Elon is sitting with his top neurolink people taking about their plans for the second implant), they have a newer approach for the implant surgery that will prevent the problematic bubble from forming.

Another point was the first implant wires were mostly placed along the sides of brain 'wrinkles' and this caused them to travel along some layer boundaries instead of penetrating more of them and letting them interact with more layers.

I think the wires also have a lot more sensors per wire and possibly more wires in total, allowing a greater range of inputs, and leaving greater resolution even after a similar percentage start having issues.

That is why we have impeachment.
Congress is the only one that can strip presidential immunity for a given act/crime.

Perhaps because if you cannot get enough elected officials to put their careers on the line that a specific act was indeed worthy of prosecution, then the executive office should not be encumbered by legal attacks on that act.

If the public truly believes that an act is heinous, and congress agrees, then it is not hard to try presidents for those crimes.
(Bill Clinton was found guilty of obstruction of justice and lying under oath related to Monica Lewinsky, and Trump was impeached twice, and found not-guilty both times, once for Trump-Ukraine and one for Jan 6th)

You can either rely on the selfless hard work of competent people who believe in this system and do the required work without pay(the current model, making it rare), or you can create laws that require specific people to do the work without pay so that it can be more common, but we fought a war to stop that sort of thing.

Those are usually pretty easy to get rid of, just get rid of the (often municipal) ordinances that require X parking spots per potential occupant/customer of various types of commercial space.

Just be careful that you don't efficiency the area into slums, because it is no longer conveniently accessible to anyone else.

Not to worry, some places will pay to install all the hardware then either not turn it on, or adjust it to make traffic worse.
Austin does this because they want to be a walkable/bikeable city, ignoring everyone who lives outside the city limits and comes in for work.(and cannot vote for city council).
Apparently they took the opening scene of office space and though that would be a good way to encourage walking, even if you live 20+ miles outside the city limits.

War makes huge profits...
  for weapons manufacturers
  for international (re)construction companies
  for black marketeers
  for human traffickers
  for companies that gain access to rare/expensive resources(like oil)
etc.

Sure a lot of those profits come from the tax-payers, but not all from US tax payers, and the margins are large enough to give sizeable kick-backs to politicians and their families(cash, no-show jobs, insider stock tips, below-market homes, etc)

Also, replacing a set of corrupt leaders with different corrupt leaders that are also in-your-pocket can give lasting dividends.

(that might be one of the reasons Trump is so reviled: he looked like he might actually make progress on reducing US military interventions, and that would cut into some very big pockets)

And thank goodness that we are finally pushing back on the last 500M years of animals turning co2 into bones and shells, then just discarding them on the ground.

Plant life suffocates to death when co2 gets below 0.02%, and thanks to the industrial revolution, we have, thus far, managed to push it back up to 0.04%.

This is why, in the past 10 years huge swaths of arid terrain have started turning green again.
When plants are gasping for breath, they lose a lot more water than when they can limit co2 intake to less punishing parts of the day.

Personally, I would prefer to have more than a 0.02% buffer between the status quo and the loss of all plant life on earth, but others seem to think that it is better to push plants closer to the brink of extinction and reduce their viable habitat.

We have a 'puppy cam' that we deploy when away on trips, but that is the only time we have a network enabled camera pointing inside our house.
Anything seen by a network connected camera can just be assumed to be visible to interested 3rd parties if it has power.
(Currently the puppy-cam is sitting in a box on a shelf in the closet with no power, because we are home and like our privacy)

Switching from being racists south of the mason-dixie line to racists north of that line is not the sort of 'switching sides' Caimlas was referring to.

When the Federalist party floundered, the Democratic-Republican became the Democratic party, first fighting with the National Republican party, then the Whig party, then finally the Republican party when Lincoln was elected as the first republican party president.
After that you had the KKK as 'the military arm of the Democratic party' and when the south finally got heir act together and decided racism was too much effort, the Democrat party went up north to foment racism in the inner cities.

With Lincoln, Regan, and Trump on one side, and the KKK, Planned Parenthood(obfuscated eugenics program), Clinton, Obama, BLM, and Wokeism on the other, I know which side *I* consider to be consistently and unabashedly racist for the last 160+ years.

I think a big part of it is the rise of feminism encouraging girls and young women to dream of a future in the corporate jungle instead of homemaking. While I am certain that some women are happier and better off for this, we have no way of knowing how many young women were pushed off a path where they would have been happy for a path that ends up making them miserable instead. I strongly suspect more people(both male and female) would be happier if homemaking were considered to be a career just as valid and valued as any other.

Any time you increase the size of the workforce, the negotiating power of each member of that workforce goes down.
I always consider this to be a primary driver for encouraging immigration(legal and illegal), Moving women from homes into the workforce did not help wages either.

Any rule or law that you add just adds to the cost of doing business, and if the cost of doing business in your locality gets higher than the cost to move somewhere else, then the affected companies leave.

Also, any corporation of significant size consists of hundreds, thousands, or millions of legal entities. This is due to lots of reasons, including legal compliance, limiting liability, branding, etc. (My wife herself has several due to keeping the different lines of her home business separate)
So you limit the income per corporation, you will just get lots and lots of divisions that all make less than that amount(This is Bob, he manages our Napa-1, 2, and 4 divisions in north west Napa county, all of which are directly owned by our parent company in Ireland)

As a corporation is made up of a group of people, it would be hard to strip any rights from such an organization without infringing upon the rights of the individuals making up that group. And due to freedom of association ( https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fconstitution.findlaw.c... ) you cannot strip individuals of their rights due to who they associate with. Put those two together and I am pretty sure you need a constitutional amendment to get rid of 'corporate personhood', and even then I am fairly confident that it would need to strip away some existing personal liberties to manage it.

We must immediately start pumping out more CO2 to improve the heat tolerance and productivity of those crops!
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Ftechnolog....

c500 million years ago squishy critters figured out how to combine calcium and co2 to make bones and shells.
Atmospheric carbon was around 9000ppm before that, and has been falling since that time.

Breaking carbon out of limestone(or other forms of dead shell/bone) involve an endothermic reaction and is an energy intensive process(Doing this is actually a big part of the cost of cement).

Currently we are in the 400-420 ppm range.

Cement production is slowing, but not reversing the long-tern trend of bio-ossification making co2 less and less available.

When co2 gets don to 150ppm, plants will start to suffocate, and at 100ppm, no plant will be able to photosynthesize.

We are already low enough on atmospheric co2 that many previously green areas can no longer support plant life.
There has been some reversal of this thanks to releasing previously stored carbon in 'fossil fuels', causing a total area roughly the size of the amazon rainforest to turn green again between the early 2000s and the early 2020s. (less co2 means less arid areas can no longer support plants as lowering levels of co2 require more respiration to get enough co2 to photosynthesize, causing more water loss to the plant)

TLDR
You can either have a greener planet, or you can have less co2. The two are mutually exclusive.
Rising co2 levels between 2000 and 2020 allowed increased global leaf coverage by 5%(similar area to the amazon rainforest).