bravo22

The testing is NOT skipped. This is a misunderstanding of 510(k).

The device still has to go through testing, validation and verification. It is a very detailed process and follows IEC spec. The device also needs IEC 60601 testing by a third party lab. In this case at least 60601-2-24.

The 510(k) means it is not doing something new therapeutically therefore it doesn't need to go through PMA process which so much longer and more complex. In this instance they're saying a pump that uses electronics to monitor and deliver glucose already exists. Our device does the same thing therapeutically but we do it differently and here is all out docs showing the device is safe.

If they came up with a magical patch that used quantum chemtrail energy to align the shakras and thereby affect the patient's insulin levels, then they would need to go through PMA and show the therapy is safe and works in small clinical trials followed by larger trials before they can make a device that can be marketed.

Don't forget the resources and money required to bring X to the limited attention of the regulators and to ensure the regulation is sufficiently up to date and not subject to capture. I would argue it is orders of magnitude more than exploring the same through liability.

And putting resources towards lowering that barrier would go significantly further than any regulation.

Regulation is by nature slow and highly susceptible to corruption or stagnation. Whereas the courts, as onerous as they may be, essentially achieve the same thing through liability but it is more dynamic, more responsive, and more likely to error correct than the former.

Liability still exists in a free market. Regulations are government's way of giving you immunity from liability laws, or not enacting them, in exchange for doing things a very specific ways. This creates moates.

Not quite. The claims, in the only one I've seen regarding RAW compression, are for a specific pre-emphasis curve being applied to the raw data, then the raw data being compressed and only cover this being done in a video camera.

When looking at a patent check the "Claims" section. An infringing device would have to perform those steps in the order provided for the patent holder to have a claim.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've had a lot of dealing with patents.

On the SSD chip sure. This looks like a resistor on the data line. The resistor would certainly not get to reflow temp.

The most charitable way I can read their statement is that the resistors are too large for the pad, and along with poor solder material it forms a weak joint which breaks over time.

I have a hard time accepting that because there is not a lot of heat on that line nor is there a lot of physical stress, like constant vibration on SSDs.

The issue is not with HDMI. The audio data is sent between each frame. The lag comes from the fact that TVs apply post-processing to video which causes it to lag relative to audio.

I am going to assume that you are OK with fractional reserve banking so I won't talk about why that is necessary as a function in an economy.

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying why use a bank versus something else? My answer would be because for vast majority of retail bankers it doesn't matter. Same reason many would use Gmail vs self-host. They want to put their money somewhere and ensure that it will be there when they need it. As a society we have a framework around that and we provide deposit insurance and we call the orgs who take your deposit, give you an IOU (in the form of an account balance) then lend a fraction of it to others a bank.

For significantly larger sums no I don't think it makes sense to use a bank and most large corps have a treasury that specifically deals with that.

Which is what businesses should have used instead of putting hundred of millions in a bank. Banks can't magically change economics. Money markets were created exactly for this purpose. This should have been taught to every founder by every VC.

Money markets also invest in highly liquid instruments so their prices are marked to market daily and traded faster than HTM portfolios. Therefore they get to adjust faster to macro conditions to ensure that the dollar amount of the asset is maintained.

That wouldn't be a store of value in the sense of actual purchasing power because you're tied to the inflationary effect of that currency.

If you mean an account that holds its absolute dollar value, you are right, although T-bills would do the same thing if traded at sufficient frequency. You are also correct about it causing bank issues. The fed reverse-repo facility, which is essentially what you're describing here but for banks to use partially contributed to this mess.

Overall there is no getting away from the fact that "value" of assets is related to the interest rate of the currency and if the interest rate rises some of those will be worth less which means a slice of people in the economy will have less than they did before. The Fed can't do anything to magic it away.

In a similar vein you can't put all your data on a server somewhere, call it the cloud, and cry foul if you lose your most important source code and IP when the server goes down. Banks can't change underlying economics. It was incumbant on the businesses working w/ SVB to not use them as their treasury anymore than they would put all their code on one AWS server and call it a day.

> That's because the economics are a scam.

No. It means there is someone in China who is willing to do the work cheaper than someone in Europe. If you beleieve they should be paid more for the same work, then great give those people money so they have the option of saying no to the "explotative" work.

But the idea that other people should not have the job because it isn't fair, is what kids would these days call "peak white supremecy" [TM], i.e. Europeans don't have the right to a job any more than other people in the world do. Historically they've ensured this through colonialism and war -- everyone around the world has done that. Now because of technological advancement a poor villager in China has the opportunity to say yes I want to do this work and take that job away away from his European counterpart. Are they getting off worse than the Europeans? Absolutely but it is better than being even worse off. If you want higher wages for them pass a law that bans Europeans from doing the work and I promise you wages will rise in China.

> You can't compete on wages when everything is asymmetrical.

You can't because what a European worker demands from others around the world is more than what a Chinese worker demands. This is both in terms of relative purchasing power in the country, and between countries.

You can increase your margins by double digits and still account for a small fraction of the overall increase. The determining factor is net profit of the grocery industry which is usually 3-5%. If you eliminated that entirely it still wouldn't put a dent in food inflation.

You are assuming there is a magical threshold for "bribing" wealth that capitalism enables.

Second point, wealth is by definition a creature of rarity. The same is true of influence. Everyone has some degree of influence over others but useful influence is what one person has that others don't. So you can't really evenly distribute wealth over any meaningful time period. You can certainly eliminate mechanisms for relating it to other uses but then you've destroyed it.

The problem you are trying to articulate has been studied. It is actually the concentration of power that is the problem. Influence, wealth, coercion are traded by some to those that hold power in order to direct it in a way that they want -- this is called corruption.

Both capitalism and socialism are economic systems. When combined with democracy they can enable corruption because it is the concentration of power in the hands of the leaders that is the critical element -- not what is used to trade for it.

When you're looking at European socialist countries you'll find the successful ones are either low population or the power int the hands of the leaders is fairly restricted because of societal structures. Meaning the instrument isn't there. Ask soon as you scale it up it rots a lot faster than ay capitalist society.

You are suggesting that capitalism creates wealth and wealth can be used to bribe political leaders correct? What am I missing?

You are railing against democracy, voting and election campaigns. You're rightly pointing out flaws in them. The solutions that have been proposed for those flaws are called small government.

The same corruption happens in every other system including socialism but even if that system abolishes money the corruption would be done through power, coercion, and influence.

The banks can maintain a central body with insurance to bail out the failed ones which is essentially what FDIC is. That part isn't the government stepping in.

The step in part is what VCs and corps are asking for which is to be made whole. In reality they should have realized -- as sophisticated actors -- that large amounts of money are always at risk. Even if you put them in a bank because it is not a vault. They're investments that you just don't have control over.

If the wish was to secure their millions to billions of capitals it should have been invested by them in some sort of instrument. This is what any treasury in a large corp already does. So it isn't unknown knowledge.

It would be as if they stored their most critical IP in a cloud server. It went down and now they want to be made whole.

You can't arbitrate away large financial risk anymore than you can technical risk. So you must understand it when you're dealing with substantial amounts of it.

FDICs 250K limit works fine for unsophisticated retail customers.

Aka crony capitalism, aka socialism with some free market features.

What do you mean by incentivise? People being allowed to have opinions? What part of free enterprise incentivises the Congress to enable this?

Comerica doesn't look so great these days either. I expect something to pop off there in the next little while. I would diversify away from them as well.

There is no limit on the waste, and therefore no market. It is an arbitrary price placed by politicians. Imagine if oil prices were not dicated by a market and a by a production cartel rather by politicans in the US.

The younger owners tend to also vote based on social "wedge" issues which means they don't need to be catered to on this issue whereas asset owners tend to vote based on their interests and have to be catered to otherwise they'll vote for the other party.

I believe this also explains the rise of progressive political factions that propose a lot of policies that seem to favour the disenfranchised but in reality benefit the rich and the asset owners. Their policies let the rich and the well off virtue signal without any consequence to their income or wealth. Voting patterns in large cities in Canada, for example in Toronto, supports this.

I see what you mean. I agree with you that it is incorrect to say that it is not innovative, or new, or useful. Those don't always correlate with monetary value.

The author however is talking about value in monetary terms, as in what other people are willing to pay you for it therefore something innovative or cool can indeed be "worthless" in the same way that a beautiful painting is worthless to a thirsty man in the desert.

They're paid based on supply and demand through their employers. Meaning the organization favours paying someone in a management position a higher salary, rather than the rank and file. The same industry pays certain actors or musicians outsized fees.

This is not a question of ethics or fairness, it is supply and demand. You can only pay X people Y amount when starting with K dollars.

I am not trying to be pedantic here but simple rules at large scale produce complex results that may sometimes seem counter intuitive or unfair. Evolution is simple rules applied at scale and it produces results that don't seem quite right but are obviously effective because they survive.

If other people aren't willing to trade their magical tokens for your services then your services are not valuable.

That is not the same thing as saying just beacuse you have no valuable skills you deserve to die of hunger and disease.

Maybe it was Masculin Féminin by Godard?

I don't know if the statement in the article is true. The belief wasn't that acting is better than thinking but that "will" is better than hope, that they would win in their struggle for world domination because they were more determined. Turns out, others were more determined than they were.

Bob has the same problem as Beth in showing the sources of his funds as being legitimate to justify his lavish spending on car rentals.

Management doesn't ask shareholders for approval on every decision.

They have a duty to act in the best interest of the shareholder. Generally that means not having reduced revenue. This is what most people accept. If shareholders want them to do something different they can let them know.