The US government gets to define racism, if legal requirements to employ a precisely calibrated ratio of whites, women, blacks, and latinos are any guide. This is America, after all, and that’s what freedom means.
The fact of the matter is that, broadly speaking, basic programming is a suite of cognitive processes that pretty much all come online at the same, reasonably above-average IQ, and they are irreducibly complex; they cannot be further simplified except by rote execution of formal process, at which point you should just let the computer handle it.
To be fair, the sort of people who used to live there then are not of a kind with the variety that live there now. Most of those who could leave — undoubtedly like yourself — did.
None of [Major Big Retailer]'s local store's profit stays in "my community". It all goes to Corporate HQ, which in the case of Best Buy is located in Richfield, MN. Amazon is just more efficient than obsolete brick-and-mortar stores at siphoning off "local" dollars. The part that isn't profit that's paid to labor goes to minorities and white trash to pay for tattoos and probably opiates.
>they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels
Total cost will be lower.
>they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity
Not electric, though wind may be a problem if the FAA allows a free-for-all, which it probably won't.
>airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
With human pilots, sure. With autonomous vehicles, nope. They'll swarm like birds or insects.
>it's not sustainable from nature-perspective
Airborne wildlife will learn to avoid population centers and "skyways".
>flying is inherently weather-bound
Only with human pilots. Autonomous vehicles will care only about ice and lightning. Severe wind, sure, but that's fairly rare in most places.
>flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers
The FAA just relaxed its regulations and will relax them more in the future. Everyone wants the personal airborne vehicle, especially winkled old bureaucrats in Washington.
>social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached
This may come as a surprise, but policymakers don't really give a damn about what the public wants. Autonomous vehicles will be more safe than human-piloted craft, which is enough, and electric, which is silent.
>This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range.
Good, because you're going to get it.
P.S. Re: +/- several hundred kilometers: There's no such thing as negative range.
It really just depends on who exactly the "public" is that is inhabiting the "public spaces". I'm sure this Khosla fellow wouldn't mind his property being used by beautiful surfer girls in bikinis who don't leave litter behind. Maybe he just wants trashy people to stay away from his property.
What did you think they meant when they said "national security"? Obviously it was something like, "we are the nation and we need to secure ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic".
Bend over for your ritual digital pat-down. Good citizen.