I wonder if you can sell the printer shell without the main PCB and just open source the main board design. Manufacture and sale of that board as a distinct entity seems tough to stop. Especially because the board can have non-3D printer use cases which it advertises as the main ones.
Reclassifying marijuana would make it legal for recreational use, and that only barely a majority position even in 2024: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/03/26/most-america... (about 57%). More than a quarter of Biden’s own party still opposes such a move.
I guess it depends on how you define “moderate.” I’d say it’s something the middle third of the public agrees with. Marijuana isn’t there yet.
Looking at those stats, only 11% fully oppose. The 57% is for recreation and medical, 32% for only medical. So it seems like your bending the truth for your argument, which doesn't surprise me since you're a lawyer.
I said that the 57% was for recreational use right in my original comment. I think it’s fair to say that what the weed legalization people really want is legalization for recreational use. And also that people who are only okay with legalizing for medical use are at odds with the weed legalization movement overall. Heck, even I don’t have a problem with marijuana being used as a treatment for glaucoma or a pain killer for cancer patients.
Schedule 3 is the same as ketamine, hardly "legal for recreational use". Rescheduling marijuana is a milquetoast moderate move far short of legalization.
My bank and local government aren't making game consoles one of my primary methods of accessing their services. Smartphones are heavily integrated into the daily lives of most people now. They need to be regulated that way and the makers of these devices need to have less control over their users. We wouldn't allow a car maker to charge a fee to parking garages because the driver is "their customer". I need a car, I need a phone; being a hub of value shouldn't allow for such a high degree of rent seeking.
Do banks and local governments require using smartphones from Apple (or any one manufacturer) to the exclusion of other prominent smartphone options? That would be surprising to me, and definitely bad. But as far as I know, core services like that are going to be accessible on at least iPhones and Android smartphones, which is going to cover the vast majority of smartphone market share, so I'm not really sure why the ubiquity of smartphones is particularly relevant to what Apple's rules for third-party developers should be.
If airlines adopt this more generally maybe Apple will create a feature to turn off air tags for a length of time. Ie: don't transmit for the next 6 hours but then start again. That would make this ban look quite ridiculous.
I will never get over the fact that the Nintendo Switch operated on random character strings to find friends rather than usernames or something more straightforward for normal users. But the fact that they managed it does mean it's not so large a barrier.
I guess it works because people think of it as if they were phone numbers, plus it removes the barrier of having to choose a username. See also the now defunct ICQ which was fairly popular even outside of tech circles.
I think these questions were meant to have an obvious and answer but they don't. We have laws and courts to figure this out. Maybe you should be able to install MacOS on your Xbox and maybe Audi should be forced to change their design. VW certainly was forced to make changes after Dieselgate. Consumers have some rights that are largely not argued about these days, like honesty in the product listing. The people on the side of more rights for the consumer are always confused why so many people want fewer rights for, not only themselves, but their fellow citizens as well. It feels unreasonable: we're standing up for you to have these rights as well and you're complaining that you don't want them so no one should have them.
In a well functioning market it would be a different story but we really need to stop pretending that mobile OSes are a healthy market with lots of competition. There are 2 players worth mentioning and that kind of market needs additional safeguards
The problem of inequality in general needs to be framed as one of power asymmetry. There are a handful of people that have managed to garner, through their wealth, similar power to states with millions of people. The solutions to this involve either making money less able to purchase power, or taking some of this money away. I suspect the latter is more likely to happen but I'll happily support either method.
I'm not sure this is possible without breaking the entire concept of money. So long as money is a thing humans trade their time for to pay for living expenses and beyond, it can be used to bribe, coerce, etc.
You may be misinterpreting what brandonr is saying. It's about increasing transparency for influencing elections and restricting (overtly) how much influence money has in elections.
Reducing the powers of money is tough (and kind of a game of whack a mole) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Well it’s not possible to do it 100%, but I think the problem is less the illegal trade of money for power and more the legal one. Campaign finance laws (which at this point probably require an amendment to the constitution) could help a lot.
This is exactly how I take it. We thought it was Capitalism vs Communism, but what we learned is you can have Centralized Communism(Cold War Russia) and Decentralized Capitalism(Cold War USA) but it is just as much possible to have Decentralized Communism(Any examples?) and Centralized Capitalism(Current USA).
As it turns out it's the Decentralized that's the important part. You need many people making decisions for productivity to flourish. Rich and powerful making few large decisions simply loses every time.
There's not much to point to other than short lived revolutions and communes, or ongoing struggles, such as:
* Aaragon/Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War
* Ukrainian Free Territories in the Russian Civil War
* The ongoing rebellion in the Chiapas, Mexico
* Rojava
* Paris Commune
* Shinmin Prefecture in Korea
And likely some others I am struggling to remember. All of these communities were/are attacked by competing states with enough force that it's hard to get a sense of what decentralized communism would look like outside of an active conflict scenario.
