variaatio @ variaatio @sopuli.xyz

Posts

14

Comments

168

Joined

2 yr. ago

Though as cheaper preventative would be just electrolyte sports drink. Meant for same thing just for sports caused sweating. However sweating is sweating.

Main thing is one can buy electrolyte sports drink by big drink mix powder jar, instead of expensive single pack.

One just has to be carefull to buy the actual rehydration drink mix instead of the normal sports drink. The normal sports drink isn't as optimal as thirst killer, since container alottaa of calories. It does also usually contain rehydration sales, but as said heck of energy bomb to be drink by bottle full outside of hard exercising. Where is pure rehydration drink has just set of salts and then maybe some flavoring and food color (because obviously sports drink is supposed to be acid green)

Ofcourse most likely not exactingly proportioned and controlled as actual ORS from pharmacy, since ORS would be done to medicine production standards.

The lead is buried in the article

During the meeting, Putin said he offered Prigozhin the option to allow Wagner fighters to continue to serve in Ukraine under the leadership of their battlefield commander, Andrey Trochev.

“All of them could gather in one place and continue to serve,” Putin told Kolesnikov, who has covered the Kremlin leader for several decades. “And nothing would change for them. They would be led by the same person who had been their actual commander this entire time.”

The offer met with some support from the Wagner commanders, Putin said. “A lot of them nodded their heads when I said this. But Prigozhin, who was sitting in front of them and didn’t see [their reaction], said: ‘No, the guys won’t agree with that decision.’”

The interview appears to be part of a broader effort by the Kremlin to win the loyalty of the Wagner rank and file, even while seeking to discredit Prigozhin by leaking sensitive and embarrassing information about him.

During the interview, Putin also said Wagner did not exist, citing Russian legislation outlawing private military companies and putting its future in doubt.

Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at Rand, a US thinktank, who specialises in Russian military strategy, said Putin’s version of events signalled he could outlaw Wagner at any moment while seeking to drive a wedge between Prigozhin and his fighters.

emphasis mine. Now it is kinda a show of weakness. He is having to court the fighters, instead being confident in their loyalty to simple order. However after that explanation it makes sense, more than the headline would first give reason to. Plus finally of course... trust zero on the truthfulness to any Kremlin statements information. However what is truthful, they are trying to achieve something with the statement, even if they would be lying through their teeth. There was a reason for the messaging.

honestly Guardian should have lead with title or at least first lead message of "Putin is trying to drive wedge between Prigozhin and Wagner, new interview shows" or something like that.

EU is not in it's first Rodeo.

• refusing to make batteries, covered, regulation demands 5 years of supplying spare batteries from the putting of the last unit of the product model to the market
• yanking prices sky high, covered, regulation says spare batteries must be offered at reasonable cost and non-discriminatory basis
• software locking out third party batteries, covered, regulation say software cannot be used to impede using compatible batteries.
• trying to get money via selling special tools, covered, special tools can't be demanded to be used to disassemble the product to change the battery, unless said tools is provided free of charge with the product.

Not EU's first rodeo.

I really don’t think they should be dictating how companies must design their products.

Like say telling to automakers they must include this design feature called seat belt and this another design feature called airbag? Also EU isn't dictating anything about the design. They are giving regulation on minimum technical features. How to design within that minimal technical requirement is free for the maker to decide. Just as say there is minimum technical regulation about safety of electric appliances in general.

Again poor, poor companies being told by the regulation they can't use their favourite "design feature" of "exposed uninsulated power wirings " on their products.

Regulations have existed and will exist. Companies operate at the please of society offering them a market to operate in. Offering such things as contracts needing to be honored, people not just being allowed to steal their property, enjoying the protected relative piece of national military keeping the mongol horde away and so on. In exchange the businesses shall play by the rules society sets.

This matter was decided by the duly elected representatives of the EU citizenry (directly as the European Parliament and more indirectly the national democratically elected governments in the Council. Well except maybe governments of Hungary and Poland.... ... ...). This is the will of the European society, so this stands.

Well some might. Then you are free to vote with wallet and move to the maker who still thinks water resistance and dust is good sell factor for phones. Market working like it's supposed and so on. Within the guiding barriers market regulations.

It would have to be personal imports. Since the regulation concerns not just the manufacturer, but Any natural or legal person that places on the market product (that phrasing appears lot on the regulation 😆). So for example importers and distributors. A retail electronics shop is responsible to make sure they don't offer on sale any new product with no replaceable battery. Obviously to their own amount of reasonable amount of responsibility. Retailer isn't responsible to go check the product in detail for all the nitty gritty technical compliance, but they have to do due diligence from the manufacturer or importer on "and this product you offer us does fulfil EU regulations. You do have the spare batteries in offer like regulation demands, you plan to honor the 5 year offer period of spare batteries" and so on. Can't be knowingly importing or retail selling non compliant products.

Well some sneaky legislative aide in EU already thought about that.

Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries or LMT batteries shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Well battery shapes will be custom, but the regulation does include demand to offer said batteries as spare parts.

shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

This being EU, EU will actually even police that reasonability clause via consumer protection agencies. You might not like the still probably pretty hefty price, but outright monopoly price gouging will not be allowed. Atleast not with in EU jurisdiction. Also makers will tend to gravitate to number of pretty standard battery sizes and geometries. Simply out of economies of scale. If you have to offer the batteries available as spares. You don't want to offer 150 different battery models on you warehousing and supply to your retail stores. You want as few as possible. Maybe say 5 different sizes or maybe couple ten different kinds on the biggest makers with the largest product range. Cheaper to buy more of similar batteries from battery supplier, than have custom module developed for each new phone model. Well unless one is apple and only has couple new models per year. They probably will have now just little bit different optimized shape battery for each models, but they also have the scale per model to make sense for that.

also:

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Meaning companies can't use software locks to deny third party batteries. Since the language says compatible battery, not replacement battery. Which wouldn't make sense anyway, since replacement battery would be the one the OEM offers. Ofcourse I'm sure there will be lot of hurdur by makers over "don't use third party batteries, those aren't as safe" and "well but that isn't compatible". However as one remembers during the early 2000's and upto mid 2010's there was a very healthy both OEM and third party replacement battery market. As with that experience, yes shoddy batteries from non-reputable people can be problem. However in this basic consumer electronic safety regulation (aka you can't just shovel anything to the market with utterly nuts unsafe circuitry in the first place) and the market itself handles it. Again it will be found out over little time, which makers are the reputable ones with the good batteries with all the proper safeties and good production quality. Reputable big chain electronics dealers then focus on only offering the established reputable third party batteries and parts out of their own reputation (You sold me a shoddy battery. It burst and ruined my phone. I'm never buying from this phone store ever again). Plus same with the actual makers with stuff like offering extensive warranties, warranting the replacement of the device, if their battery messes it up and so on.

This is all "we have already been here" ground except instead of the T9 numpad on the phone front, there is now a whole front covering touch screen on it's place.

Not really. Expect in that obviously many of the exact current water resistant phone design can't be used. Since those don't have replaceable battery. However already at this very moment there is smart phones on the market with both replaceable battery and water resistance. Like Samsung Xcover6 pro . Not that it is the only one, but example from the major brands instead of the more niche rugged phone specialist brands. In fact in my experience in the rugged phone market replaceable battery is quite common (and thus apparently desired by customers) feature. I assume on the rugged phone user segment liking the ruggedness of "I can continue the lifespan with new battery" and even "Well I'm going to middle of no where wilderness, spare battery might not be stupid idea".

In opposite to the hurdurhurdur can't make water and dust resistant phone with battery covers. Yes we can. We figured this out by early 2000's. Touch screens on the other side of the phone taking place from the old numeric T9 pad doesn't change the design fundamentals of the back of the chassis. Rigid enough cover plate with rigid enough pressure applying latching combined with rubber seal designed and molded to seal the desired areas will do the job exactly 2027 as well as those did in 2002.

As said all it takes is a redesign job with the battery swapping idea being kept in mind from start on the chassis design. Maybe it means couple mill thicker phones, since the phone isn't a single glued together slab from front display glass to the back cover glass, so it isn't rigid by being single monolith resign block essentially. However as far as the massively bulky thick rugged phones, all phones aren't headed there. That is about impact resistance instead of water or dust resistance. Thick layers of metal and rubber both to withstand and to soften impact.

Oh no, poor Apple having to do a redesign. How can they ever afford that with their billions.

No, voice calls including POTS calls will stay. This would be additional. For second point this is a very big may or if. They are pretty much just studying the possibility, maybe doing a pilot project at some point. Any showstoppers or big obstacles show up, this would abandoned quickly.

Far more important and already implemented is reporting of the callers mobile phones locations via an official emergency call app. Also emergency center can get the cell network triangulation location, but often in rural Finland it might end up being "anywhere on this towers coverage area". Amounting to anywhere on this tens of square kilometers circle. So say somewhere in vinicity of this village, maybe.

The call app can get direct phone GPS receiver access and thus down to meters location.

in specific applications. not all calculations are suitable for quantum computation.

Well the one thing you are right about is the governments being different.

Cell networks are modular as such those can be compared per capita, not per absolute. USA has population density twice of Finlands. Also since these are cell networks affordability can be talked network wide instead of locally. Sure that one Winston farm is not affordable, but we'll the local city already makes up for it.

Upon which we come to the reason we can demand they take that hit of providing for Winston Farm and not just picking the cream from the top by sticking to the city.

Common good or public good. Limited shared reasource, that can't be utilised without affecting others. If one company gets for radio band and is choosing to not provide for Winston Farm, that shuts out company B. Company B was also going to utilise the radio band, but their plan was to serve Winstons also. Company A thus excludes ability of winstons to be served, even if winstons wanted to be served and willing to pay fair price

Same as we don't allow companies to pollute air endlessly, since it denies the ability to habitate in the polluted air. There is only one atmosphere, there is only one radio space around Earth. It is only feasible to run one water network, one electricity grid in a city. In that case the shared common good is just the space itself. If someone puts up an utility pole on the only strip of land next to the road, someone else can't.

There is more than one radio band, but only limited amount.

For some crazy reason they haven't snatched it up yet. Atleast a domain seller website is saying it is free for pickings, if you want it.

Then again maybe their policy is to put everything as subdomain on cnn.com and make cnn.com their sole brand "if it's not on cnn.com, it's not that CNN". Still i would have though they defensive register all relevant TLDs, even if they never ever use them.

Nah. He is also known for instant turns, when he thinks he has bargained enough or when it happens to suit the image he wants to present.

For example say he decided "Vilnius is the moment I stop bargaining, but only at last minute. Lets see what concessions I can get out of them until then" or so on.

It is exactly on brand for Erdogan to suddenly turn his position and go "what problem, there is no problem. What I said last week there was a problem... no no no, I Erdogan The First have solved problem quickly in only few days. Yes we made a deal, I negotiated amazing deal, deal solves the problem. There is No problem anumore. It's solved."

What happened to solve the problem? Nothing, Erdogan just stopped insisting there was a problem in first place and well some flowery language on top to make it look like it was deal to end the problem and not a climb down to end the problem.

Nah. Sweden doesn't seem to have given any firm commitments about security beyond "We work on it together", which can mean exactly as little or as much it fancies Sweden after they are in NATO.

To me this is simply "Erdogan has decided he has seen this bargaining to completion and it would look really bad, if this thing wasn't resolved by Vilnius. Pressure started to mount with This is starting to be embarrassing Recep from rest of NATO" and he simply called it good.

Nothing needs to have been changed on this exact moment, He just decided he has tried long enough and has exhausted the concessions and no point dragging it on. Instead of benefit, it started to be more hindrance in his calculation to keep this going.

He can now tan in the limelight in Vilnius as the leader who saved the situation at last minute. Mind you the problem was of his own creation, but hey those are the best kind of problems. You have exact control and can "solve the problem" at exactly the most suitable last minute moment. Actual problems are harder for "last minute saviour" credibility collection. You might actually fail to solve the problem and thats not good.

The only other option would be to run the infrastructure to them and that’s not gonna happen anytime soon unfortunately.

So we should cause a global sky pollution problem to solve local political problem. How about... No. We don't pollute global shared good and instead USA just has to pull it by it's boots straps and solve it's political administration problems.

Africa, North Europe and so on doesn't have problem with setting up cell networks even for rural areas. Point to point microwave links have been invented to even avoid having to run ground fibre to each cell tower. We have the tech. Thus it isn't a absolutely necessary problem. It is local political problem.

Fix it.... or well suffer lack of internet. USA doesn't get to ignore the external global costs just to make things politically more convenient locally.

Well sure there is use cases for satellites like ocean and sea going ships, remote ocean island and antarctic research stations. However "small village in rural, but mainland USA" is not one of those to me. It could be handled by radio towers and wired links. If only the political and resource priority was there. It is far more permanent and sustainable infrastructure choice, than "we have to keep blasting space rocket very 5 years to keep this towns internet going. If they stop blasting the rockets, we lose the internets."

Same applies to pretty much all mainland and all communities outside of something like deep jungle and deep siberia. I come from Finland. Finnish Lapland is not exactly hive of population density, but still couple hundred people villages and just summer cottages have mobile internet cell coverage. I remember when it wasn't so. There was time, when dial up and satellite internet via geostationary was a thing in 1990's and early 2000's. It all fell out with the spread of cell networks. Who in their right mind would compete with "20€/month, you get 5G/4G internet. Unlimited data, 100Megs speed", heck 50€ per month as much you can eat and 5G can deliver 1G service mobile cell network with constant satellite launching. putting up towers with microwave links isn't that expensive. I streamed Netflix at family summer cottage in Lapland.

The "but vast distances" is empty argument. Is USA way vast to Finland.... yeah, but there is also 300 million people compared to 5 million to pay for it all. . Problem in say USA isn't vast distances or small population density. It is that mobile carriers are run as regional monopolies without sufficient monopoly controls of "no you have to serve also that town there, you have to serve that ranch there. You are utility company using the public good of shared radio spectrum slots. Sure you paid license for it, but those are limited resource. Even the paid for radio slots come with obligations. Electric utility has minimum service obligations, now you telecoms are new electricity, here is demands for minimum service obligations. In this county you have sought to have under your coverage, you provide radio coverage for every permanent residence. Including that farm. Don't like it? You are free to relinquish your temporary license for exploitation of common good resource and we will find someone who will do same business with acceptable to us terms.... Oh would you look at that, seems to be like 5 companies in queue there at the door."

Do the Finnish mobile operators like they have service obligations in certain regions to cover even low density areas as private profit seeking business? Noooo, but ahemmm they are still making profits. Do they like they have to offer roaming under fair terms to competitors to avoid every operator having to put their own mast for every last village? Probably not. They are still making profits. They fullfill their minimum service obligations and play by the roaming and competition rules, government leaves them alone to run their business.

That is the aircraft's problem. Excavators, bulldozers, drilling rigs and tunnel boring machines need to dodge fiber optic cables and so on. :)

Additional fun fact: Radio towers anchored to ground are also dodge obligation free and are able cover the supplementary mobile and wireless communications needs to complement the wired connections for cases of not being able use wires.

😀