A major contributor to this statistic is fire sprinklers. New apartment complex construction for decades has required them but they're virtually nonexistent in single-family homes, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.
California has mandated it for new construction for over a decade now. Of course old stock doesn't really ever turn over in California so it's entirely possible that we will never reach a point where a majority of SFH in California have sprinklers, but it's certainly possible to change for new homes.
Lifestyle marketing, romance, appeals to independence, metaphor, and humor. All timeless advertising tropes. It's cigarettes themselves that are passé.
I remember most installers bundling such bullshit. It may have been so normalized that no one was sincerely asking if participating would harm their reputation.
I barely noticed as the practice went out of fashion but I'm so glad it did.
It's an acquired taste. All alternative sweeteners taste differently from sugar. These days, I appreciate that such beverages don't leave a film in my mouth and have a little extra bite compared to sugar.
I think it's interesting that people go through effort to acquire tastes for various formats of alcohol, dark chocolate, black coffee. A taste for aspartame is more useful to acquire than any of those, in my opinion, but alas it's not associated with refinement and sophistication.
It's better to think of flavors as different rather than strictly better or worse.
I think the underlying needle this is trying to thread is teaching kids to know their audience and adjust their register for it (which is a much broader skill than just whether or not to curse), but I agree that the fucking president ;) doing it gives kids ammo to argue against the rule. Idk if that's a good or a bad thing, maybe just neutral.
The rest of that same sentence, " – and that if specialised tools are required, they must be provided free of charge when the phone or tablet is purchased," seems to mitigate that concern, no? I suppose it hinges on what the test for a "specialized tool" is.
EU regulatory bodies haven’t been as blindly sycophantic towards megacorporations in terms of allowing them to skirt by rules set forth by their legislatures, so I would be more optimistic than if this were a development in US law.
The free market only works when you have sufficient competition. The phone market is absolutely not trivial to enter, so your first sentence is plain and simply false.
Also, given that iphones almost already pass the requirements, where is the harm to innovation?
There are hundreds of phone choices made by 10+ manufacturers. What lack of competition are you referencing? You can still buy a flip phone if you want.
The harm to innovation is not today, but in the future for some as-of-yet built product. That is.... what innovation is...
Specialised as in created specifically for swapping battery of that specific phone? As in you cannot do it with a generic commercially available tool (e.g. a screwdriver)
Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 states that a battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
Guidance on tool types can be drawn from standard EN 45554:2020e (2). In the context of the assessment of a product’s ability to be repaired, reused and upgraded, this standard uses the following classification groups: (i) basic tools (including
those provided with the product as a spare part) or no tools; (ii) product-group specific tools; (iii) commercially available
tools; and (iv) proprietary tools.
The concept of commercially available tools mentioned in Article 11 comprises the categories of basic tools or no tools and of commercially available tools as per EN 45554:2020e.
The concept of specialised tools laid down in the Regulation refers to product-group specific tools that are not available for purchase by the general public but are not protected by patents either. Article 11 requires that any such specialised tool that
might be necessary to have a portable battery removed and replaced is provided free of charge with the product into which the battery is incorporated.
As per EN 45554:2020e, proprietary tools refer to tools not available for purchase by the general public, or for which any applicable patent are not available for license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Such tools should not be
needed to remove portable batteries
--- start quote ---
(I fully expect literally no one on HN to spend even a second looking for and reading the relevant texts, and complain about the law being vague or impossible to implement or something)
No more pedantic than the comment I was replying to. My advice would be not to use "eatable" at all because others will just think you're saying edible incorrectly.
In the US, photos of food must depict the actual product being advertised. So all the photos of burgers on the McD's menu are what is being sold, albeit with carefully selected "hero" ingredients skillfully assembled for the best presentation.
For a product that is only advertising one thing in a photo, e.g. an ice cream cone with ice cream on a package of just cones, I don't think there are any restrictions on what the "ice cream" can be made of. (It's probably mashed potatoes, though.)
reply