CPDLC exists and is used. It has its limitations though - it doesn’t provide as much flexibility for pilot replies, pilots don’t always have a free hand to text with (especially in turbulence), and is generally slower and more clumsy than voice so is only suitable for routine, non-time-sensitive messages.
That sounds like a system that was bound to fail, because it was kept limited to a certain range of capabilities.
One can easily imagine a system that broadcasts the weather and clearance, and even aircraft location data close to real-time, and provide great situational awareness to everyone involved.
I don't think it's acceptable to put tens of thousands of people within a crowded airspace and not do everything in our power to keep things organized and secure.
Yes, I can superimpose an arbitrary imagined object (in full photorealistic detail)... however it's still in a separate/parallel "channel" of my mind and I intuitively know it's not something I'm seeing physically.
The best way to describe it is that I'm copying what I'm seeing through my eyes into my mind's eye, and superimposing the image there. This happens in real-time, effortlessly. I then have two streams of visual information that I can chose to pay attention to, one with the superimposed object and one without. If I chose to focus on the scene in my mind's eye, it's as if I have superimposed the object into my actual visual field. I can switch back and forth between the two parallel visual streams at will.
From a US perspective, even this seems wild to me. I've always been told that at least an annual physical exam with bloodwork is highly recommended as the standard of care for adults of all ages.
Not everyone chooses to get them, of course. But ACA insurance plans here offer at least one annual physical exam free of charge (considered preventative care).
Cynically - this sounds like an opportunity to sell you more medical care.
The NHS isn't perfect, but one of the things it does well because of it's structure is minimise costs holistically. It's cheaper to treat conditions early, so usually implements appropriate screening to catch things. If they don't do regular checkups like this it's because they're of minimal value.
It's free if you don't bring up things that should technically have been a dedicated own appointment.
The idea behind physicals is they're considered preventative care... catching problems early, often before there's any overt symptoms. For example, checking your cholesterol and A1c levels before they progress to heart failure or diabetes.
Once you're showing symptoms, you've left the realm of preventative care and it's now diagnostic/treatment for a established issue.
(ACA only provides 100% free coverage for visits that are 100% within the "preventative care" box.)
Annual exams were included in the ACA but as I understand it there is no evidence to show that they improve health outcomes. I had one once in 15 years when it was incentivised by my employer (presumably trying to show that we were low risk to reduce the rates they paid?) but otherwise my doctor has never tried to book me for one.
I think I'd prefer the UK system where if you worry something is wrong you can see a doctor free of charge.
Anecdotally, I've found yearly physicals with full blood workup very helpful in heading off issues before they become much larger issues. For example, a random blood marker pointed at mold exposure. I thought that was strange, I didn't think we had any mold. Then I tore open one of my ceilings, there was a very slow leak in the bathroom above the top of that drywall was covered in mold. I replaced all of that drywall, and that blood marker shot down, and a few others improved drastically, and my energy levels improved. By going regularly, you get to see the trend lines on various things - those other markers had been going in a worrying direction over time.
I wonder how accurate that is. As in, these screenings are meant to detect early signs of issues like diabetes, liver problems, cholesterol, blood pressure, and so on. Is the case that many people are healthy and don't need it? That we haven't had a long enough sample time to know how screening in the 30s affects outcomes in the 60s?
Actually, I would've have assumed the other way - that the NHS was better than the US system. Which was why I was shocked when you said health checkups aren't allowed before age 40. :)
US healthcare plans offer an annual physical exam every year at all ages. Looking at the UK NHS website, it seems to be only offered there after age 40, and limited to once every 5 years? Am I reading that right?
> Actually, I would've have assumed the other way - that the NHS was better than the US system.
I thought it was relatively uncontroversial that the major problem with US healthcare is not quality but cost. And the UK NHS is widely regarded as one of the lower quality implementations of single payer in any modern social democracy [0].
You have it backwards. Housing is astronomically expensive in San Francisco precisely because there are so many people with high incomes bidding against each other.
When you have a highly inelastic supply (constrained by zoning laws, density limits, and geographical boundaries), prices rise to the maximum margin of what the highest-income buyers are capable of paying.
Regarding taxes: Since taxes apply to all local high-earners equally, it doesn't change their relative purchasing power against one another in the local housing market. If taxes were suddenly halved, that extra liquidity would be priced into the next bidding war, driving home prices even higher.
- Messages send quickly and reliably, even under poor and sometimes hostile network conditions. Telegram just seems to work even when other chat apps struggle.
- Telegram uses usernames instead of phone numbers by default, which is good if you're using it as an IRC replacement instead of an SMS replacement.
- You can have the client open on essentially unlimited devices simultaneously, including a web app if you need it.
- Messages can be edited at any point after sending with no expiry.
- You can schedule messages to send later, or send a message silently so it doesn't wake people up.
- Different group types - announcement channels, Discord-style groups with sub-channels, flexible moderator roles, etc. (I believe WhatsApp has some of this.)
- Support for bots, which is also very helpful for managing large communities.
- Community-created, sharable stickers. Seriously, people underestimate how nice these are.
The downside is that a lot of this requires state to be stored on the Telegram servers, so most chat's aren't E2E encrypted. (They do have an option for E2E encrypted private 1:1 chats, but you lose most of the polish by using that.)
Also, the official apps are open source, so you can modify them if needed.
- insanely fast search, chat history browsing and in app navigation
- unlimited unencrypted cloud storage, your chats and docs always stays available
- ability to send very large files
- ability to host large video and voice chats
- chat automation
- auto translation and transcription
- mini apps
- open source client, with lots of customization
- phone number less sign up (you can purchase a burner number from them and sign up with that, I guess it costs their crypto (ton) tho)
- sending gifts
WhatsApp will have usernames too in the near future and one will be able to reach out to a WhatsApp user solely by username hiding the phone number. One can create a username already reverse it. Sounds very similar to the Telegram username approach but we will see.
- Telegram uses usernames instead of phone numbers by default, which is good if you're using it as an IRC replacement instead of an SMS replacement.
---
What? When you register, I'm pretty sure it requires putting in a phone number that preferably isn't a VoIP line and not a username. It's been that way any time I've tried to use the service on mobile.
Scheduled messages have been a thing for a long time on Signal, but they seem to be only on mobile, which is wild to me.
I would posit that Signal is more for individual to individual. I'm seeing in these comments that telegram is clearly a lot more community centric, ala Discord lite than I realized.
This concept of percent of profits shouldn't be considered in the context of fines. For regulations to have teeth, punishments shouldn't just slap you on the wrist just because harmful practices weren't responsible for a lot of profit.
In that scenario, a lot of growth companies or just poorly performing companies could just say "sorry, we don't make any profit, so our maximum fine is $10," and obviously that wouldn't be fair at all.
Fines should really be about "what size fine will be a deterrent for this company?"
> Fines should really be about "what size fine will be a deterrent for this company?"
To a degree. But it also has to be commensurate to the actual market size and impact. If an Amazon releases a defective dog toy that is bought by 10 people, it’d be unreasonable to fine them $100 billion dollars just because they’re a huge company.
Fines are strictly punitive. The only goal of the fine is to change behavior, not to be 'fair'.
It's true that the fines differ per the act, but that's only because the act itself determines how much people would desire to continue it despite a deterrent.
The fine for jaywalking is less than the fine for speeding because (a) society doesn't want to stop jaywalking as desperately and (b) even a small fine of $25 will cause people in cities to follow the rules and not cross the road willy-nilly but with speeding even with the fine you may want to still speed hence why almost all states also give you only a few chances to break that law in a year before they take away your license.
---
You're supposed to collect damages on top of the fine.
Which is why John Deer is paying our almost $100 million[1].
An additional $50 million plus FTC oversight for 10 years is to ensure John Deer comply, and to set a standard for further fines if they do not comply. If they continue to willfully not comply, like some people continue to jaywalk or speed, the fines will drain billions or reach a point that the company will be dismantled.
Depends entirely on whether or not you think Amazon actually caring about the fine and bothering to do anything to prevent it recurring is part of the goal.
If it is, the fine must be large enough to matter against the backdrop of corporate P&L. Courts have an entire category for this type of fine: punitive damages.
Maybe $100B is too much for that particular infraction, but the idea of punitive damages has nothing to do with "fairness" or charging the real cost of the bad thing they did.
It's a deterrent. It says: "you did a really bad thing and I'm going to slap a huge fine on you so you think twice about doing it again". And "huge" has to scale with the entity paying the fine. It has to be an actual wound, not a papercut.
Posted in another comment but you cannot just think about John Deere's balance sheet. A whole other industry would have existed without John Deere's intervention but they were able to capture a lot of the GROSS revenue due to it. You can look at other non high litigation capture industries like automotive.
On the technology side, I'm somewhat hopeful because it looks like they're using off-the-shelf HP ink cartridges for this. HP cartridges embed the printhead into the cartridge itself, and that printhead is arguably the most complicated part of the entire device. Outsource the printhead, and you're just designing a plotter with a PCL interface.
I agree that the bigger challenge is going to be patents.
It also wouldn't surprise me to see HP add DRM to cartridges to authenticate the printer itself if this catches on. (Possibly requiring a printer driver/firmware update.)
The cartridge heads have a super curious digital protocol - the cartridge electronics have no power supply. There is no power rail internally either.
Instead they use the fact mosfet gates have capacitance, and can therefore store 1 'bit' of information. Through a network of hundreds of MOSFETs, the right bits can be put on all the nozzle gates as needed, and then a 'fire' pulse is sent which for around a microsecond turns on a tiny heater (or not, depending on mosfet gate state). The heater boils some ink, making a pressure wave which travels down a pipe and makes a drop of ink fly out towards the paper. That heating and cooling again can happen around 10,000 times per second per nozzle (and there are ~300 nozzles).
I suspect this decision is because the custom silicon process needed to manufacture these nozzles is cheaper if they only have n type MOSFETs - and without p type MOSFETs you can't make a typical push pull logic gate.
The nozzles themselves are quite a lot of silicon - perhaps 100mm^2, with deep etched holes, and are effectively disposable, so I assume huge efforts have been taken to reduce costs - including this curious electrical design.
The protocol also is hugely irregular, which I suspect might be to avoid any wires on the chip needing to cross eachother.
Impression v. Lexmark is directly relevant to the patent situation here; in a case involving reprogrammed ink cartridges, the Supreme Court held that patent rights are exhausted by first sale doctrine; that is, if you sell me something patented, you can't sue me for patent infringement for using the thing you sold me, even if I do something later that makes you upset.
It's also been widely held that ink cartridge compatibility tools/hacks are allowed under DMCA.
However, it does seem likely that there's probably some shenanigan involved in the area - one example I could think of would be if HP have patented the way the ink cartridges are retained in the printer, for example, that would have to be carefully audited. And there will be license and trade secrets issues with the use of the cartridges, although if they were reverse engineered cleanly and the printer doesn't come with cartridges, those are probably pretty easily side-stepped.
These cartridges were first released in 2004, and there don't seem to have been any major design changes since then. The electrical and digital interface for printing has remained the same, as well as the mechanics. There is a new DRM system using another chip, but that is one-way - ie. It prevents an original printer from using the cartridge, but doesn't prevent use of an original cartridge by a third party printer.
Any patents are probably expired or very close to it.
A sea of patents designed to inhibit competition & promote rent extraction, and we are running around in circles chasing our tails wondering how we can compete with China.
China is changing stance on patents... Thier companies are now filing for patents at great speed, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start mass suing American companies for violations.
I could totally imagine a rapid upheaval of the patent system as soon as we see it being used against us.
> I agree that the bigger challenge is going to be patents.
Surely most/all of the patents around the actual inkjet printing function have expired though, right? I had inkjet printers in the mid 00s and if anything I feel like your average inkjet is worse these days.
In medicine, it's a regular trick to find some new patentable formulation or tweak to switch to manufacturing shortly before the original patents expire, so that you continue to have a patent-protected product.
It would not surprise me if something similar was happening here: HP's current cartridges have at least one piece that is under active patent protection and they don't manufacture any designs that have no patent protection. I don't know enough to state that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but the print heads are a very specialized silicon chip with internal microfluidic passages, microscopic heaters, etc. Who else would even make them? The kind of thing you would need millions of dollars to reverse engineer and replicate just to enter the lucrative market of... making inkjet cartridges.
I would be shocked to discover that there are counterfeit print heads out there the same way there are counterfeit STM32 microcontrollers.
Unless the patents have something to do with the shape of the cartridge or they somehow have a patent on "technique to fill printer cartridge with ink" which would not be so surprising.
Maybe they should have purchased a design from Canon or someone that isn't really in this market anymore. It seems like not only are they locked into a specific older technology generation (which could be ok idk) but they also risk HP just discontinuing that cartridge. It seems like the printers for this cartridge were released around late 2017 so they could deprecate earlier than they normally do. Seems like they provide 10-20 years typically. At the same time , maybe this is just meant for a small user base of nerds and maybe HP wont care.
I did some research on weird inkjet printers a few years ago. We wanted to do stuff like print white[1] graphics continuously onto rolls of black heat shrink tubing.
One thing I discovered was that there's whole Chinese industries supplying this stuff in the forms of industrial printers and the application-specific cartridges they consume. And they all had one thing in common: They were based around the functionality of an HP printer cartridge. That was the universal interface.
This leads me to believe that a print cartridge format can be supported by the marketplace for a very long time whether HP likes it or not.
[1]: Printing with white is neat. It sounds impossible and there are those who say it can't happen, but it exists. It's just problematic. The head gets perma-clogged with solids within minutes of disuse in open air. So starting a print job is a race: Get everything set up, uncap the cartridge at the last moment, and then put that cap back on ASAP when the job is over.
Are you referring to the numerous Chinese UV printers?
>The head gets perma-clogged with solids within minutes of disuse in open air. So starting a print job is a race: Get everything set up, uncap the cartridge at the last moment, and then put that cap back on ASAP when the job is over
Decades ago I helped manage a local's school IT systems and we had these Epson C84 printers that used a very photo grade ink. The printheads would clog after a year of teachers printing like 1 document in that year. During that time it seemed like regular purging of ink regardless of print or not was what kept the printheads going. Strategies used by third party repair firms included submerging the head in a cleaner to dissolve the ink on the outside, connecting pipes with the same fluid to the inputs of the top to the printhead and then finally pulling pressure to try and dislodge the material through the head. Due to the non removable design of the Epson print heads, my attempts at trying this would destroy many printheads. I'd like to think this would be a solved problem in 2026. In your case why not run a purge liquid the printhead after each print? The printhead could then be primed with fresh ink each time.
We were using fixed-head printers that we found at the bottom of a deep rabbit hole. The work moved through the machine while the printy-bits remained stationary. We were doing this with HP-style monochromatic carts that came loaded with high-solids "ink" (closer to paint, really) that used opaque white pigment.
Unlike Epson's ecosystem, HP carts most-commonly come as assemblies, with a new print head included in the same disposable cartridge as the ink is. The only connection between the carts and the rest of the printer is electrical; there's no plumbing or functional fluids that are external to the carts.
This self-contained nature means that when ink runs out or heads gets clogged, replacement of everything involved with fluids is fast and easy. Production can continue immediately.
It's not problematic at all...other than being expensive. :)
Canon is still in the market, they just supply parts and license IP to the printer manufacturers like HP. They make some high value stuff to sell to the OEMs but I don’t think they can make a whole print head anymore.
Why would they bother? They make all their money on the ink cartridges. If this drives more cartridge sales it’s a win/win for them. They generally don’t make much, if anything, on consumer ink jet printers themselves
This printer will use refilled cartridges. It could even use cartridges that have been sent out under the 'instant ink' subscription scheme. People in that scheme usually end up with a drawer full of spare cartridges, as they send them to you like they are worth the pennies that they actually cost.
People willing to use refilled cartridges will use them regardless of the printer they’re going in, so again it’s no lost sale for HP.
Heck, it may actually save them money. At one point they were losing money on every printer sale and making it back in ink No idea if that’s still the case.
It’s negligible revenue and carries some risk. Say the printer works well, and these enthusiasts drive a couple of thousand more cartridge sales. And that encourages someone to develop an alternative cartridge, which is mechanically and electrically compatible with HP’s.
It just seems easier to fire off a cease and desist than to take a risk of other people messing around with your ecosystem.
I don’t see why HP would want to do that. They have huge margins on ink, right? I’m sure the increase in cartridge sales would offset lost subscription revenue from useless cloud services, if only because the people who are gonna use an open source printer would never pay for that anyway.
Yea, but then the print head clogs up after the second time you refill it and you buy another expensive print head + ink from HP.
Frankly, I think 99% of the reason they started integrating the print head with the cartridge was to avoid all the problems you so frequently see on printers that don’t use disposable heads.
The crowdsource page says it has refillable ink tanks rather than cartridges. Unless they are modifying HP cartridges, which is probably not smart from a legal standpoint.
It's worth clarifying that the adenovirus-based (viral vector) vaccines that article is discussing were a completely different technology from the mRNA vaccines.
I am quite curious too. I had heard that, despite arm vascular being very consistent among individuals, it does still vary. And I think for most vaccines I guess it doesn't matter if you hit something other than muscle. Maybe for the mRNA vaccines it does matter? I'm baselessly speculating though. Wish other person hadn't been so vague.
In an intramuscular injection this is always tested by the nurse and this complication is far rarer than a nerve injury by the syringe. But in billions of cases anything can happen.
But seriously, given that the 3D printer movement started out with people building their own printers from scratch and there continues to be a healthy open-source hardware ecosystem within the community, I can't see this stopping anyone.
Unless you also make it illegal for 3D printers to print 3D printer parts...
These laws also apply to subtractive manufacturing methods like CNC machines. They just aren't as common in households so they don't get the headline space to grab our attention.
reply