That sounds like a technicality. You can absolute agree to not do something that would otherwise be lawful. You still have the same rights, but you have other restrictions on you. The two can exist concurrently.
I guess aviation always has an element of risk and the real debate has to be around safety standards and training. A loss of aircraft, crew or worse people on the ground is never acceptable and seems to happen more than it should.
For corporates it could be a good balance between security and being able to spoon feed people AI. It is an alternative to Microsoft and the mess of different products and licences.
Whilst I am sceptical about Google in this space I do think it is a move in the right direction to do more locally and actually use the space modern machines have on device.
A problem with your "voice of reason" is the assumption that it will prevent nukes in Iran or the region. The US people have just offered an object lesson in why deterrent weapons are useful. How capricious they are in diplomacy. And how willing Americans are to withdraw boots on the ground in allied countries. Of course most of that won't be surprising to Iranians.
> The US people have just offered an object lesson in why deterrent weapons are useful.
It's easy, we don't let them have nukes, period. Bombing their underground facilities was absolutely the right thing to do and can be repeated if/when they rebuild. I would go further, finish the job, and insist on complete disarmament of the country.
Artemis certainly seems safer at least in launch. It has an escape system that could be triggered throughout launch. In comparison shuttle could not abort at all until srb separation and after that could have needed risk aerodynamic manoeuvres.
reply