They're not all banned, you just need a prescription to get one which realistically should've been implemented day 0.
Eventually it'll prove very impactful with the youth, it'll reduce the number of users and make it more cost prohibitive to be so prolific as it is right now.
Yeah I don't think my doctor is going to give me a cannabis vape prescription, though admittedly I haven't asked.
I don't see how making vapes prescription only changes the situation with children, which is that all tobacco products are illegal to sell or provide to a person under 18. Cracking down on the sale of tobacco to children does not require tobacco products to be made prescription only, these are orthogonal issues. All this does is drive profit towards shonky pill doctors who advertise on facebook that one cheap over the phone appointment is all you need to "feel great again" and other euphemisms, and will give you any pill you ask for regardless of the medical suitability.
Why though? Bottles/cans are easily recycled and I believe the small reimbursement is easily recovered during the recycling costs.
It's not profitable to recycle small electronic devices otherwise you'd see heaps of shops doing it. It's toxic, hazardous and labour intensive.
100 times the deposit amount would be like $5-10 USD per-device which is insane. I do agree that any retailers should be required to take back empties and dispose of them responsibly.
> It's not profitable to recycle small electronic devices otherwise you'd see heaps of shops doing it. It's toxic, hazardous and labour intensive.
Sounds like they should be banning their sale and/or production then, just like many jurisdictions have been with plastics and other non-recyclable items. These devices are not an essential-to-life item where the waste produced is justifiable, especially when you consider the LiPo batteries, which are a borderline-environmental disaster from the moment the lithium is mined to the day that battery finds its way to a landfill. Why single-use disposable vaping devices exist in the first place is somewhat perplexing given permanent/re-fillable ones are also available, often right beside the disposable ones, and generally offer a significantly lower cost of ownership.
I think waste management should be required to scan the garbage and remove useful items, i.e. recyclables. This would take the burden off consumers and allow more items like this to be intercepted. The technology is there, why not force the corporation to innovative?
It's very profitable to recycle small electronics in some economies where thousands of companies do it (eg India or Shenzhen); in countries where human labour is more expensive, it's untenable
That's a good point. In America we call this type of deposit a "core charge." The "core" is the component you return to the store to get your deposit back.
This is done for components like starter motors, alternators, power steering pumps, batteries, and a variety of other components. The complex components are re-manufactured to like-new specifications and the less complex components are recycled to recover materials. The battery is a probably the only component where the potential ecological impact drives the cost of the deposit.
I never thought about it but it is odd car-components are the only thing most people will experience with a "core" charge. Why don't more industries do something similar? Is it just because car ownership and car repair has been such a core (no pun intended) component of American culture? That a system of recycling has been set up?
I was curious about when and where these core charges started. It looks like it was the result of WW2 and the shortage of steel and other materials forcing both the military and civilian manufacturers to turn to recycling and rebuilding parts out of necessity. After the war, the remanufacturing industry was large enough to stand on its own and the concepts stuck around. Some hazardous items like lead acid batteries have legislation helping to enforce the core charges but the rest seem to be market driven.
Yes but Tailwind Plus has a flawed business model, AI was not really the reason nobody bought it, it's that it's a lifetime purchase and that shadcn + LLMs has eaten their cake left right and central.
If LLMs didn't exist but shadcn still did, do you think people would pay and use Tailwind+ or shadcn?
Tailwind UI is tool companies buy to save dev time mostly on internal/back office tools. It's usually bought per project. The math is pretty easy - if it saves you few hours of devtime you buy TailwindUI. Shadcn and bazillion other similar things are certainly competition but TailwindUI is very broad and of high quality so why not pick the nicest version.
The problem is that Tailwind is extremely portable (thats why it's so popular) and since LLMs have been fed all TailwindUI code... people using LLMs don't even have to know that TailwindUI exists they just get some Tailwind styled components. They would probably look pretty confused if you told them you used to buy these templates.
It's the difference between one-off revenue and recurring revenue. If you're making new components, making new changes for the new version, adding new css and browser support it's hard to keep going with only income from new customers.
shadcn/ui I'd argue is probably the single biggest factor in the declining Tailwind revenue more so than just LLMs in general.
As said is it is to say shadcn is what Tailwind should've created and maintained for a fee rather than some html/css templates that are easily replicated.
I say this as someone who bought Tailwind+ to support the project many years ago and still use Tailwind every single day.
It is for many problems, especially concurrency related ones, much less powerful than trace points. But the issue I have seen is that some tools like gdb have unergonomic support for tracing so there I tend to use break points or printf debugging just because the tracing support is so bad in gdb.
Chrome probably has the benefit of being updated frequently rather than more of an annual cycle. But Safari still isn't anywhere near IE6 levels of awfulness.
WebKit also isn’t trying to push a proprietary OS-locked runtime for interactivity, doesn’t wildly diverge in most rendering behavior, and handles most basics correctly.
As much as IE6 was a menace for not keeping up with standards, what made it really bad was crap like ActiveX, radially different layout/rendering behaviors, and shortcomings like inability to render transparency in PNGs and some of the most illegible italic text rendering I’ve ever seen.
I think the problem is it's too risky to utilise a "new" database today that isn't available as a managed option on many platforms.
Neon is just Postgres for the most part -- sure if they shut down it'd be a pain to migrate but you'd mostly be fine just swapping to AWS RDS/Aurora or the plethora of other Postgres providers.
Buying into things like Gel or now defunct RethinkDB mean if the primary company went under you're stuck with a dead DB engine and potentially no managed hosting options.
I mean sorta? It's value add over something like Aurora or RDS has been it's SDL and EdgeQL layer which makes it a hard pill to swallow not knowing if it's going to go under and you're stuck trying to maintain that yourself or migrate off of it.
Eventually it'll prove very impactful with the youth, it'll reduce the number of users and make it more cost prohibitive to be so prolific as it is right now.
reply