The FAA has one of my favorite examples of thoughtful rulemaking. They haven't banned flying with a baby on your lap, because the extra cost would mean many parents would drive instead. Since driving is far less safe than flying, a ban would lead to more deaths. I'd love to see more of this "all things considered" thinking around bans.

In fact, one specific place where I'd like to see this thinking applied is adjacent to this rule: babywearing carriers on planes. When our babies were little, carriers were massively helpful in flying. The baby likes it, and your arms are free. But for takeoff and landing, the FAA requires you to take your baby out of the carrier and hold them in your arms.

David asked a great question on my solar battery system post: why buy a small battery just for emergencies when electric cars have a large battery you can also use for other things? [1] This would be great, and seems like the obvious way for it to work: when the grid goes down the panels can charge the car when it's sunny, and the car can power the house when it's not. Unfortunately as far as I can tell the only way I could do this today is with a Cybertruck, and other systems are a long way off.

The basic problem is that while several manufacturers support having the car power your house when the grid is down ("V2H"), they generally treat it as a separate discharging-only mode. For example, the GM V2H Bundle documentation says "During a power outage, the GM Energy Home Hub safely disconnects your home from the local power grid and enables backup power to flow from the GM Energy Inverter throughout your home" and "Once power is restored, your GM EV will automatically end the discharge session and begin charging" without any mention of recharging the car when the grid is down.

Like most houses with solar, our house is capable of generating a lot of power, and it's basically useless [1] in a disaster. If the grid is down, the panels shut down automatically. This is a lot of value lost, since in a long-term disaster, electricity would be incredibly valuable (air cleaning, gas boiler or a tiny bit of resistive heat, sump pump, cooking, refrigeration, tools). When we installed a second round of solar in 2024 we considered either a battery backup or "best effort when the sun is shining" power. They priced out at many thousands of dollars and we decided it wasn't worth it, but recently three things have changed my mind:

I'm pretty worried about how AI might change the world a lot very soon. In some of these cases things go very wrong very quickly, in others things go very right very quickly, but I'm increasingly (relative to 2024) expecting a messy middle path where, whether we end up with a good or bad outcome, things might get weird for a while. Our supply chains are fragile, fulfilment is largely just-in-time, and if we'll suddenly need way more of some things they might not be available. Thinking a lot about biosecurity for my day job, I'm especially worried about how people, AIs, or some combination might release something to spread through the population.

What can we do about this? A few months ago Chris Bakerlee (program officer on Coefficient Giving's biosecurity and pandemic preparedness team) wrote up 10 big projects for reducing bio x-risk. Working on any of these professionally would be really valuable. Looking over the list, however, it occurred to me that most of them have solid actions we can do at the individual level.

My program that uses whistling to control a synthesizer is now available in the Mac App Store:

It's free, no ads, and open source. If you have a mac and like to whistle, give it a try? You need an external mic, headphones (wired, to minimize latency), or both; I recommend the former.

I've had several conversations with people over the last few weeks that have highlighted how far apart my view of the near future is from many people I talk to. Here are some things I might tweet if that was the kind of thing I did: