I don't think any current flow in the water is deliberate. The heating comes from the resistive heating of the coil. The issue (i think) is the coil being uninsulated, allowing some current to leak out through the water, hence the tingling sensation others have mentioned.
Probably not much harder, but you wouldn't get the same massive jump in quality that you get going from 1 image to 2. NeRF/Gaussian Splatting in general is what you're describing, but from the looks of it, this just does it in a single forward pass rather than optimising the gaussian/network weights.
I thought, (although the rules might have changed), that Apple explicitly forbids having different prices between your website and the app, and will kick you out of the store if it finds you doing this?
According to this article Spotify was charging 30% more on iOS all the way back until 2016 with multiple other prominent examples still existing today, so I don't think that this is true or at least hasn't been true since at least 8 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/07/08/heres-why-...
Isn't part of the problem how US anti-monopoly law is worded requiring proof of "consumer harm" which is normally measured in increased costs? In the case of Apple's monopoly, its not clear how you would measure that let alone prove it to a court.
US anti-monopoly law is worded requiring proof of "consumer harm" which is normally measured in increased costs?
This is more a matter of interpretation, policy and practice rather than statute and these things can change over time. The interpretation you're describing was itself an innovation at one time.
Consumer harm is pretty easy to argue, Apple doesn't tax macos programs but it does tax ios programs. That argument results in billions of dollars of consumer harm. There are many arguments against that view as well, but I just wanted to show that it is easy to argue for consumer harm.
I don't think that's enough though is it? To my mind the strong counter argument is that consumers are choosing to pay higher prices for "higher quality" (i know that often not the case with the scams on the app store) apps and if they want cheaper apps they are free to switch to android.
> I am curious though, why is the iOS version €4.99 but the Android version is free ? I've seen this a lot actually and have always wondered, I figured it might just be Apple's annual developer license fee but not sure.
Apple users are being forced to pay more for equivalent software because of Apple's tax.
Oh 100% I agree. My question/point is about how the US system treats monopolistic practices, and I worry that actually that example works in Apple's favour as they would likely argue that consumers are free to switch to android if they want cheaper apps.
If apple were to pay for the android replacement phone & perform the transfer of personal data to the new device then that might be a valid argument. As it is they do their best to lock users in to prevent them from ever switching.
As I'm not an expert on American Employment and Labour Union laws, does anyone with more experience know: is this not very likely to cause significant problems for Tesla with the NLRB?
It depends. If they were violating an existing corporate policy and got fired, there won’t be any problems for the company. Likewise if they were recording meetings with participants in California or one of the other states which require all parties to consent to recordings as those are explicitly crimes and Tesla could have the employees charged.
If the policy didn’t already exist there might be problems. You have to be squeaky clean in order to defend your job while trying to unionize in a company unfriendly to the idea.
I might argue that the issue is not "having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs to corporate.". But rather having corporate act on those needs, and in the face of larger investors like Buffet and Vanguard, who would probably like more to see dividends and share price increases, unions are a good way to balance the scales a bit.
