This is good public policy thinking. At a minimum, if you want to take our tax dollars, you need to do _at least_ the bare minimum to benefit the public.
Keep in mind there is a balance where the "ask" for receiving government funding may prevent the creation of the work in the first place.
Sometimes, the right balance may be to require the work to contractually enter the public domain in return for receiving funding. Sometimes, the government could negotiate something less than in order to get a net benefit.
Yes, it's contractual because of copyright. If someone (and many parties in the process) created it back then, there is a web of copyrights that require royalties to the creators. Contracts would control who this obligation is owed to (if anyone) years later.
What? It has nothing to do with copyright. It's a provision negotiated by unions for the benefit of members which means you can't employ anyone in certain unions without a minimum royalty schedule.
Notably, live action productions covered under SAG-AFTRA and WGA get residuals while animated works under IATSE did not until very recently.
I rented a place during the summer that had a plasma TV in the master bedroom. I had to disconnect it, and never used it, because it generated so much heat that we could not sleep.
Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.
> This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with.
No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.
Telling people the truth (including what you don't yet know) and letting them freely assume their own risks is a powerful way to win them over.
> because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view
People don't change their worldview because someone tries to change it for them. Straight facts without manipulation of any sort is the best way.
People know when they're being manipulated, talked down to, and lied to. That's the worst way to try to change their opinion. Fauci and other officials did a lot of this early on, unfortunately, and they lost credibility with large swaths of the public, leaving a truth vacuum that badly misinformed youtubers rushed in to fill.
> No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.
For better and for worse, this is not true with most people. Most people are most open to changing their viewpoints if you engage them in a manner where you try to take their side, first, and then lead them in a new direction.
Straight facts might work best for you, but I'm afraid they're pretty much a sure-fire away to turn off most adults who've already made up their minds and don't already agree with you.
You're right that communication is critical, but it's precisely because facts are omitted that causes the problem. Those facts just come out later, and that only makes things worse. Instead of transparency and straight forward communication, public health officials are engaging in manipulation of the public. So called noble lies, like telling people masks don't work in order to cover for the lack of mask availability. That burned their credibility and is just one example.
The lies and lies by omission are literal oxygen to anti-vaxxers because they can point out, with proof, that we were lied to. Naturally the next question is, what else are we being lied to about?
Stop lying, start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax and anti-expert sentiment dissipate.
I would also point out that there is an intentional conflation between anti-vaxxers (those opposed to all vaccines) and vaccine hesitant (those who are pro-vaccine generally, but are weary about a new vaccine or were already infected and have natural immunity). The latter are being grouped with the former, and this has also destroyed a great amount of credibility and trust.
> Start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax sentiment dissipate.
I've only seen Anti-vaxxers treated as adults from the onset, being upfront about the data etc. It just get disputed, debated and then denied.
I'm burnt out and numb to them at this point. I do agree with you that information shouldn't be omitted; However, the damage is done at this point. It's not going to stop either.
"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.
I'm not convinced the biosecurity state will go away anymore than the TSA will disappear tomorrow. Government agencies rarely cede power back to the citizenry.
Every single government, bureaucracy, expert, official, authority in anyway all gained power during covid. A lot of them “discovering” powers they had no idea they had (CDC, evictions).
I agree it’s unlikely anyone will give it up willingly.
Here is the full conclusion of the paper, rather than the blog post which summarizes the paper:
> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
No - we have anti-vaxxers because nobody will debate them. Instead we ask them not to post their nonsense and so they just retreat to their echo-chambers and begin reinforcing their views to each other.
I've seen many online debates with antivaxers and nobody convinces anybody of anything. People just get angrier and more hardened in their opinions. Everyone goes into it with an us vs them mentality instead of open minded.
Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Trying to hide crucial information inside the article or censor it altogether just fuels all these misinformation campaigns.
I'm not sure why the parent was downvoted. The trademark scheme was built to make marketplaces more efficient, by giving producers a carve out in the conversation--a word or phrase or logo--so that they and consumers and distributors can engage together confidently with some bright line rules to work with.
The alternative is anarchy, and much more expensive then filing for a trademark if you want to sell in the marketplace. Like insurance, everyone that wants to be in the market pays a little, so that it makes it easier to avoid something like this.
Absolutely do not take any of this advice of the parent. I am an IP litigator. I kill patents as my day job.
The parent’s advice assumes the players are reasonable people acting in good faith. In the case of patent trolls, they are often not acting in good faith. Most of the allegations are not good faith interpretations of the patent. There is no “perception of infringement” to begin with. They just want a quick payout and found a cost-efficient way to state a claim against a widely used technology so that they can threaten and file lawsuits in volume. Instead, find a good patent lawyer or a pro bono resource (like EFF or a colleague with experience) that can give you resources or advice to quickly dispose of it cheaply (or even for free), if you cannot afford fight it. Sometimes, it can even be cheaper to hire an excellent patent lawyer that can win the case early than it would be to pay off the patent troll. I have written many a response to a patent licensing demand letter, knowing exactly what to say for much less than settling, where they disappear and never sue. And if they have sued, sometimes they disappear as soon as lawyers they do not want to be up against show up in the case.
In the instance of a good faith claim by a patent owner (even if wrong), there will be enough money at stake that it would be worth the cost to consult a good patent lawyer before doing a single thing.
Its almost as if health care is not something that would ever be accepted by any stakeholder as a truly free market. So why does America pretend that it should be treated like one?
Brought to mind Yeti coolers. Unnecessarily expensive, but that's why you have/want them.
> Well, the price, for one thing. Yetis work like a Veblen good, which are luxury items that turn the laws of supply and demand upside down. Take Swiss watches: “A guy who buys Rolex watches doesn’t want a cheap Rolex,” Williams says. “Part of the prestige of that brand is when you wear it, everyone knows they cost at least $8,000 and up. If Rolex brought out a low-end model, it would kill their brand.” It’s why the iPhone 5C — a low-priced iPhone — flopped. [0]
Yes, Yeti coolers are generally the most expensive coolers. But if that was the only reason for their high price point, we would see alternative rotomolded coolers of similar quality that are significantly cheaper, not just the 10-33% we tend to see in the market.
Yeti 45: $300
Engel 45: $275
RTIC 45: $200
Sure, $300 is quite a bit more expensive than $200, but they're also not the same:
- Yet 3 years vs RTIC 1 year warranty
- Yeti performs better
- Yeti has better design (form & function)
- You can pick up a Yeti at your local REI vs RTIC is only available DTC
- Yeti is a household, lifestyle brand, that's done the work to create this market (alternatives would most likely not exist without Yeti doing this work)
The difference between a Rolex and another watch that has the same capability is a couple orders of magnitude apart in price. $200 vs $300 on a cooler isn't that big of a difference.
I'd wager it's because it wasn't nice, not because it wasn't expensive. Low end phones aren't nice to use, and people who buy Apple buy it for the polished user experience.
If they sold their flagship phone at entry-level prices then I'd expect it to do as you suggest, selling like hotcakes but devaluing the brand. Even then it wouldn't do half as much damage to the iPhone brand as a $100 Rolex would do to the Rolex brand, because iPhones have a lot of utility that makes them worth having whereas a watch is, these days, almost entirely a vanity item.
