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.
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.
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.
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.
Free markets are not a panacea, nor do ideal free markets ever exist anyway. Also, free markets require regulation to prevent powerful actors from making them non-free.
> the market will produce it.
Only if it's profitable. Feeding poor people, caring for the indigent, etc. isn't profitable.
To profit means that you accepted a debt instead of getting something in return for your efforts. Business seeks profit because the expectation is that it will pass the debt on to the stakeholders who will then call the debt and get something in return for their efforts.
But it is people who participate in the market. If they demand profit continually, therefore not getting anything in return, that just means they're working for free. People won't feed the poor unless they can do it for free? Methinks that's not what you meant.
Nor can regulation. But the idea is that, in seeking to avoid liability, people will avoid doing things that would foreseeably lead to such liability.
Likewise regulation is limited to preventing foreseeable issues, and is often only implemented after somebody suffers damages.
The difference is that regulations are imposed by a third party whose interests may not be aligned with those who are actually involved in the matter. This is good in circumstances where there are externalities, for example just because I'm okay with entering an agreement with a company to use my backyard to store toxic waste doesn't mean my neighbors would be very happy. But when people are making decisions that will only affect themselves, such as what wheelchair to purchase, liability really is the more sensible consumer protection.
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.
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.
These SSDs are tiny. The controllers can easily get up to 80C during sustained writes, so there could be mechanical stress from thermal cycling. (Source: we also make small USB-interfaced high-speed storage devices and do a range of reliability testing for stuff like this)
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.
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.
(Being serious) should banks as we know them even exist, then? Maybe having them fill a role as an intermediary makes sense, but now that we can securitize loans, why does opaquely connecting short-term lenders directly with long-term borrowers make sense?
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.
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.
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.
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.