IMO cynical opinion, if anyone were to create a better tyre, that would save the consumer money, the company would be promptly bought and the product shelved for ever.
However, if someone invented a product that would result in the consumer needing to spend more money on 'safe' tyres or whatever, just watch the legislation and (artificial) public outcry demanding it.
How'd that work out for SawStop? A tech that makes table saws basically safe by stopping the blade immediately on contact with water (simplified description). The inventory tried to license the tech, then tried to get regulatory agencies interested. He never had any luck. I imagine his licensing terms were too much; he ended up making his own line of saws which are substantially more expensive than the unsafe competition.
I'm sure there are tons of other examples. Outside of highly regulated areas, improving safety usually plays second fiddle to lowering price.
There was new development in the SawStop story in 2024, their release of a key patent to the public for use by other manufacturers in preventing amputations:
Anyone sane would patent that tire, and then sell it for a small bit more than regular tires and take all the profit, while driving their competitors out of business because their tires are better and so worth the extra cost.
Youtube is surprisingly good at recommending me really obscure channels that nobody else seems to be watching (often I see why, but there are some gems). And it's not recommending Mr Beast, so I must be doing something right I guess. I also get a lot of channels lately about philosophical analysis of science fiction stories, so that's pretty cool.
The presentation of reality is always worsening, and now there are more means to present than ever. And people are experiencing reality through screens more than ever.
But if you turn off the screens, the physical reality hasn't really changed that much. There is some horrible architecture inflicted on us, but then parks and streets are nice/cleaner than in my youth.
PS I do agree that the social pressures are worse, with both parents encouraged/needing to work.
> the physical reality hasn't really changed that much
It sure has. We've lost a significant proportion of the other species on earth in the span of a few decades. For just one example of many, "69% decline in vertebrate populations globally since 1970." (WWF Living Planet Report, 2022 [0])
The current extinction rate is 100 to 1,000 times the natural background rate.
Half of all coral reefs have died since 1950, and entire marine food chains are collapsing.
There's been a 75% decline in flying insect biomass in parts of Europe over 30 years
(Krefeld Study, 2017). 1 in 6 bee species have gone regionally extinct.
1.3 million sq km of forest have been destroyed since 1990; the size of South Africa. Now Trump is talking about logging National Parks and cutting down a California sized amount of trees.
96% of all mammal biomass on Earth today is humans and livestock.
I think maybe a better approach I saw was to sweep and vacuum up NY City sidewalks for gemstones that have fallen out of people's jewelry.
It's similar to the idea of sweeping up the edges of high travelled roads looking for palladium. But I think the palladium recovered wasn't worth the effort. But the gem stones might be, even if they're tiny.
> The dagger isn’t Ukowski’s first big discovery. Last year, he found a broken papal bull—a pope’s engraved lead seal—that may have been linked to Clement VI.
As you also say:
> it could mean it's from I BCE, and it's been stylized to look ancient.
How is it that sneaky fees were ever legal? Surely the legal principle is very well established that the price shown is 'the price'? And that sneaky fees were already illegal?
I can't help but wonder whether a blind eye was turned, in order to then require new legislation that includes onerous clauses. Such as requiring photo id/verification etc, as others say. Ie that whatever this legislation is, it may be an open ended expansion of legal powers.
Legislation usually tries to catch up with technology. In the times when people paid cash at a ticket office and they would not have had hundreds of options many of the things mentioned would not have happened - life was slower, there were fewer options, reputation was more important.
Would it have been possible for legislation to change faster? Probably, but that's politics, deciding together what is the next things to solve while having different opinions and many things to solve.
It is not bad they try to fix it, am I personally sure this was the most important? Not sure. There are many horrible things out there when some group takes advantage of another one...
They are not hidden fees buried into a contract that you've signed. The term in the article is "dripped fees": the full price is disclosed step by step.
Ultimately the full price is shown before you enter into a contract and before you pay. You have no obligation to buy.
They are more of a misleading advertising practice to get your attention and further along the sale funnel.
It's a common question about new legislation that appears to overlap with existing. AIUI it helps regulators/police etc with charging, as the new legislation can require less burden of proof etc. Happy to be corrected
But there is of course plenty of other political motivation for legislation and I can see what you're saying.
The fees are still visible to you before you purchase; they are only visible at the last step. So you are giving consent. Nothing obviously illegal per se, just a poor experience. At least in the US, Biden was unable to anything about it. Whether it was lack of will or incompetence, he didn't achieve anything. At the local level, CA tried to pass some laws to similar effect, but they also didn't go anywhere and were ultimately watered down to create carve outs for the most profitable junk fees.
When I see this sort of comment, I feel like saying: 'well, go on then - you lead the way. If it's really a viable and pleasant way to live, why don't you show us?'
I have been planning it out but only for my property. I can not afford to build the national, international or interplanetary bits. Getting a good team together at my location is my only obstacle. It's very hard to find a solid general contractor and team here that will build as designed in phases. They want to do it all in one shot but that introduces a lot of legal risk if they are doing it wrong.
I love being underground. It's cool and quiet. Those facilities also last a very long time. I found many "Kilroy was here" scribbles in tunnels in the military and some of them were dated back to WWII.
As a consumer, is it possible for me to opt out of seeing IP protected imagery?
I would be absolutely fine with not having pokemon, mickey mouse etc shoved down my .. eyeballs.
I know this is a ridiculous point. But I think I'm getting at something here - it ought not to be a one-way street - where IP owners/corporations etc endlessly push their nonsense at me - but then, if I respond in a personal way to that nonsense I am guilty of some sort of theft.
It is a perfect natural response to engage with what I experience - but if I cannot respond as I like to that experience because of artificial constructs in law - perhaps it ought to be possible (legally) to avoid that IP protected immersion in the first place. Perhaps this would also be technologically possible now.
However, if someone invented a product that would result in the consumer needing to spend more money on 'safe' tyres or whatever, just watch the legislation and (artificial) public outcry demanding it.
reply