> The _current_ regulations favor the established.
Which is why de-regulation is the answer in this case. If a regulation is bad, roll it back, don't put another layer of complexity on top. Complexity, again, favors the incumbents. They have more resources to deal with all the nuances.
No. The regulations aren't in place to protect consumers, they're in place to make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to compete. They're lobbied into existence by the market incumbents to stifle competition.
If you go listen to their CEO's testimony, he clearly states that the one single original patent behind the idea is now open but was expiring anyway. He brags about them spending a lot of money on R&D and needing to recoup that, reiterating that they have many other patents that aren't being opened that cover the exact implementation. He talked about them exploring those other methods, choosing not to patent them, and only patenting the best solution.
All his words. He's trying to explain that sure, the patent is open, but companies are still going to have to work harder than Sawstop because they have many more patents they refuse to open that cover the best and most logical implementation of this idea.
You're asking for a "cynical" take, but it's not really cynical! The CEO is trying to tell everyone, openly, and they're not listening. They are NOT altruistic, otherwise they would have opened the entire suite of patents. They are openly saying this singular patent is open, because it doesn't matter and that they will doggedly defend their other patents. Now, every other manufacturer will now need to navigate a minefield of patent litigation, and follow the path of subpar implementations that Sawstop ruled out during their R&D.
I don't know why everyone is ignoring his testimony and thinking the company is giving anything up, it's wild!
You're probably confusing Fluoride which is actually quite difficult to remove, often needing expensive and complicated filtration such as Reverse Osmosis, with Chlorine which is trivial to remove with charcoal filtration.
The alternative to reclaiming would be to leave it in place and pave over the top (asphalt overlay). That has limits, though, so reclamation will be a requirement over time.
The claim and wording is valid and correct, though. You cannot recycle asphalt if you leave it in place. And what is removed is recycled at a rate of 99%.
If you don't reclaim the asphalt, then it's still in place, and technically still in use.
Semver has been 2.0.0 for 10 years, look at the date of the assets. Multiple releases created today where none existed before. Not sure why someone is creating releases now, perhaps just some housekeeping/cleanup.
Would invites be a solution? Anyone can sign up if they provide a number, otherwise you need an invite from someone with a number linked. It would clump the identity/legitimacy for all invitees into origin number, but still allow disparate accounts.
They were one step further than just reflecting heat, they were tuning emissivity to actually give off heat and cool the surface underneath. Extremely impressive from a heat transfer perspective to cool a surface passively!
The idea is basically "sky is really cold, give it your heat." Fascinating.
Photopea has completely replaced my Photoshop usage, and now that I have an Illustrator equivalent, that monthly creative cloud subscription isn't looking too appealing...
I might do this, but the servo still works. So long as I can still drive the servo, I think I'm good. It's open loop, so I'll need to watch something to determine when the door is fully shut.
Which is why de-regulation is the answer in this case. If a regulation is bad, roll it back, don't put another layer of complexity on top. Complexity, again, favors the incumbents. They have more resources to deal with all the nuances.