The heat shield in the Artemis I test flight failed. Now the Artemis II is using the same heat shield because to redesign would have taken 18 months or more. The heat shield failed because of the trajectory where pressure swings caused cracks in the shield. So they are now going to alter the trajectory where the same pressure swings won't exist. It sounds really risky to me.
I haven't seen prices rise much at all, I think most of the companies absorbed the difference. I have two minds on this. Because most of the price hike was absorbed, perhaps they should get a refund. But on the other hand, the nice thing about these tariff hikes being absorbed, it was effectively a tax on the rich.
And another side to think about- necessities are largely domestic (food, rent, etc). It's only if you're going out and buying an expensive thing on Amazon that you might pay a lot in Tariffs, so again, it does seem like a tax on the rich.
Depends on what you are buying. I saw a report that higher quality goods saw minimal price adjustment -the more expensive goods have enough margin they could eat the difference. Cheaper products were already fighting to stay above water, so they had to increase prices to immediately offset the tariff pricing.
Ok ok I shouldn't have used "steals". My emotions got the better of me. Venezuela kept some oil the U.S. bought. But the charges of Narco-terrorism against Maduro are ridiculous.
The patent system is a oke. They should have something like temporary patents with lifespans from 3 mo.s to 3 years. Or rule saying they can allow a limited number of copycats as long as they try to differentiate at minimum a little.
I was looking for an explanation of why apple and google received such a difference in outcomes.
1. Apple had to post a link that said Epic's product could be purchased at elsewhere
2. Google has to do a lot more. Like actual anti-trust punishment things
IMHO, these two should be both punished because the duopoly is pretty self-evident.
From what i could grep (and it's dumb): The problem lies in the structures of both monopolists. Apple has never ever let any one else make smartphones, and it's walled garden is completed, so the court can't compel it to open up and let others (like epic) play. So a link is all they have to do. Android smartphones do allow other app stores, but Google makes it hard to install them, highly discourage them, and google pays developers to not release on other app stores. So google has an "open" market but behaves like a monopoly. So the judge is trying to "level" the market and punish google for acting like a monopolist.
I think apple should get the same treatment, but how?
reply