Apple actively impeded third-party repair shops though. Oregon had to outlaw parts pairing for them to change that practice.

> Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. [...] note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. [...] I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way. Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1253528244#C...

I would argue the opposite, since consensus from reputable sources is not the same as consensus of the general public, and unless it's a subject of study in multiple fields, the consensus in their field is their area of expertise.

Academic scholarship is generally preferred over lay sources, though there are caveats and individual instances of primary research are rarely considered indicative of consensus (usually review articles and other secondary sources are significantly preferred). However, if you do disagree with any information on Wikipedia, even if it's based on only your own primary research, I would strongly encourage you to at least tag the statements with a {{dubious}} or {{disputed inline}}[1] tag so that it can be discussed, or make an edit request[2] if you're not comfortable making the change yourself.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_inline [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests

Quality of life while undergoing treatment is also entirely non-existent, trust me, you to not want to be "immortal" if it required indefinite ECMO. Unless you enjoy living in hospitals I guess.

But hey, it triggered this HN discussion, and I see a lot of replies here which seem more useful for that kind of thing.

NASA could have totally gone forward with developing the DC-3 if Nixon didn't cut their funding. The lower cross-range and payload were dealbreakers for the USAF but perfectly acceptable for civil spaceflight purposes.

Not really, but the DSA package has been in the works for quite a while now even though it seems very recent. The DMA may have only really come into effect May last year and the compliance deadline was only three weeks ago, but it was first proposed by the Commission all the way back in 2020, and building off proposals from the previous Commission. In a sense, they've been working on it since GDPR in 2016.

The issue with degrees of freedom can be mostly pinned down with preregistration, among other measures. It won't solve the problem of having more type I errors at any specific error rate the more science you do, but it does give assurances the target type I error rate is accurate.

It would be funny if it wasn't fucking terrifying.