×
How To Download YouTube Videos to Flash Drive Easily & Safely

How To Download YouTube Videos to Flash Drive Easily & Safely

Download YouTube Videos Sponsored Tech-news

To watch YouTube videos without buffering and play them on various devices, downloading YouTube videos to a flash drive becomes a necessity. This article, therefore, shares some ways, including a third-party video downloader,  to download HD videos from YouTube; keep reading.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. Downloading videos from YouTube may violate the platform’s Terms of Service and could infringe copyright laws if done without proper authorization. We do not encourage or support any form of copyright infringement. Always ensure you have the necessary rights or permission before downloading any content.

Way 1. Download HD YouTube Videos Directly to Local Device

To speed things up and avoid repetitive steps, you can use a bulk video downloader for YouTube to directly download them to your flash drive. Here, we recommend you use EaseUS Video Downloader.

EaseUS Video Downloader is a professional video downloader for Mac and Windows that helps save Instagram images and videos, download Facebook videos, and get Reddit videos quickly. When it comes to YouTube, it supports downloading almost all kinds of content, including regular videos, audio, Shorts, playlists, and even live streams. You can choose from a range of quality options, from 360P to 1080P and up to 4K resolution. Its bulk download feature lets you download up to 50 videos at once.

Key Features of EaseUS Video Downloader:

EaseUS Video Downloader is a user-friendly tool. Let’s see how it works:

To check the downloaded file, go to the “Finished” tab and click the playback button to watch it directly.

[‼️Important] To see where the file is stored on your computer, hover your mouse over the file and click the file icon that appears.

Way 2. Save YouTube Videos Online Free

You can still use an online video downloader to save YouTube videos on your device and then transfer them to your USB. Many online websites claim to offer HD YouTube video downloads, but be cautious—some are loaded with intrusive ads and pop-ups. Using an ad blocker is strongly recommended. Fortunately, there are also reliable and clean options available. For example, AuryLab AI provides a smooth, ad-free experience and performs exceptionally well when it comes to downloading YouTube videos.

Step 1: Download YouTube Videos to Your PC

Keep reading the process to save videos from YouTube with AuryLab AI’s YouTube video downloader:

  1. Go to its official site: https://aurylab.ai/tools/youtube-video-downloader.
  2. Copy and paste the YouTube video link into it.
  3. Then it shows a list of download options. Choose the one you prefer, and click “Download video.”
  4. Then, the video will be opened in a new window. Click the three-dot button at the lower right corner, and click “Download” to start saving.
  5. Then, you can check the download progress from the Chrome Downloads. By default, Google Chrome saves downloaded files to the “Downloads” folder within your user account.

Step 2: Transfer the Downloaded Files to the Flash Drive

  1. Plug your flash drive into your computer’s USB port.
  2. Open the Flash drive in File Explorer by right-clicking the Windows Start menu and clicking “File Explorer.” Alternatively, go to “This PC” from your desktop.
  3. Right-click the file folder and click “File Explorer” to open a second window. Now you have two windows open.
  4. Go to the second window and find the downloaded videos. Just drag and drop the downloaded videos to the USB drive icon.
  5. Once the transfer is complete, safely eject the flash drive from your computer.

Tips for Saving YouTube Videos to a Flash Drive

Assuming a YouTube video is in MP4 format, with a frame rate of 30fps and a duration of 10 minutes, a 360p video typically ranges from 40 to 60 MB. Below are the estimated file sizes for other video qualities.

  • 360p: File size: 40–60 MB | Fits approx. 250–400 videos on a 16GB USB
  • 480p: File size: 60–100 MB | Fits approx. 160–260 videos on a 16GB USB
  • 720p: File size: 150–250 MB | Fits approx. 60–100 videos on a 16GB USB
  • 1080p: File size: 300–500 MB | Fits approx. 30–50 videos on a 16GB USB
  • 1440p: File size: 600–900 MB | Fits approx. 15–25 videos on a 16GB USB

Best Video Format for Later Playback

  • MP4 – The most versatile format, compatible with nearly all devices, including PCs, Macs, TVs, smartphones, and game consoles.
  • MKV – Ideal for playback on PCs, some smart TVs, and advanced media players. It supports subtitles and multiple audio tracks.
  • MOV – Best suited for Apple devices such as MacBooks, iPhones, and iPads.
  • AVI – A good option for older devices or legacy systems, though less efficient in compression compared to modern formats.

Final Thoughts

This article shares two ways to download videos from YouTube and the detailed steps to transfer them to a USB flash drive. If you need direct and faster downloads and batch downloading, try EaseUS Video Downloader; if you prefer no software installation, consider using the online video downloader for YouTube.

FAQs on How to Download YouTube Videos to Flash Drive

Here are more questions about this topic, so please keep reading.

1. Can you download YouTube videos to a flash drive?

You can’t directly download YouTube videos to a flash drive; you need to download them first and then transfer them to the flash drive.

That depends. According to YouTube’s Terms of Service, you’re not allowed to download content unless you see an official download button (such as in YouTube Premium) or have explicit permission from the copyright holder. But if you are downloading for personal, non-commercial use, and only if it complies with local laws, it is likely legal.

3. How can I download long YouTube videos to my computer?

Most online video downloaders for YouTube do have file size and length limitations. It is better to use a professional video downloader app like EaseUS Video Downloader to save long YouTube videos. 

Source link
#Download #YouTube #Videos #Flash #Drive #Easily #amp #Safely

Tag

Related Posts

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon SAVE 0: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just ,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or 0 off its list price of ,199. ,499 at Amazon ,199 Save 0 *with on-page coupon* If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X. As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just ,499 from its usual ,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s 0 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price. #Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space researchThe Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary SocietyFor more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”— Casey DreierThis is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Georgina TorbetCloseGeorgina TorbetPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Georgina TorbetNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceSpaceCloseSpacePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Space#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space research

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space
It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill. Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people. In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter. The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.” Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident. Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic. TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds. Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there. San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel. But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC. Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software. Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district. Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.” When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch

It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

Post Comment