traviswt

> 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.

Regulations favor the established.

This would be absolutely perfect for a Riven remake.

This is fantastic, and with the vowel has another dimension. Love it, thank you!

Scroll down.

Really wish this wasn't so... nsfw. My kid would love it, but there's no way in the world I'm sending him this link.

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.

I've had mostly a positive experience with Jellyfin on AppleTV. Have you tried it? Curious what's considered a dealbreaker for you.

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.

> Mozilla spending too much time/money and other crap over the years

It seems like a pretty bit conflict of interest when the #1 money source for Firefox comes from Firefox's only real competitor.

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.