bravo22
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Second point, wealth is by definition a creature of rarity. The same is true of influence. Everyone has some degree of influence over others but useful influence is what one person has that others don't. So you can't really evenly distribute wealth over any meaningful time period. You can certainly eliminate mechanisms for relating it to other uses but then you've destroyed it.
The problem you are trying to articulate has been studied. It is actually the concentration of power that is the problem. Influence, wealth, coercion are traded by some to those that hold power in order to direct it in a way that they want -- this is called corruption.
Both capitalism and socialism are economic systems. When combined with democracy they can enable corruption because it is the concentration of power in the hands of the leaders that is the critical element -- not what is used to trade for it.
When you're looking at European socialist countries you'll find the successful ones are either low population or the power int the hands of the leaders is fairly restricted because of societal structures. Meaning the instrument isn't there. Ask soon as you scale it up it rots a lot faster than ay capitalist society.
The same corruption happens in every other system including socialism but even if that system abolishes money the corruption would be done through power, coercion, and influence.
The step in part is what VCs and corps are asking for which is to be made whole. In reality they should have realized -- as sophisticated actors -- that large amounts of money are always at risk. Even if you put them in a bank because it is not a vault. They're investments that you just don't have control over.
If the wish was to secure their millions to billions of capitals it should have been invested by them in some sort of instrument. This is what any treasury in a large corp already does. So it isn't unknown knowledge.
It would be as if they stored their most critical IP in a cloud server. It went down and now they want to be made whole.
You can't arbitrate away large financial risk anymore than you can technical risk. So you must understand it when you're dealing with substantial amounts of it.
FDICs 250K limit works fine for unsophisticated retail customers.
I believe this also explains the rise of progressive political factions that propose a lot of policies that seem to favour the disenfranchised but in reality benefit the rich and the asset owners. Their policies let the rich and the well off virtue signal without any consequence to their income or wealth. Voting patterns in large cities in Canada, for example in Toronto, supports this.
The author however is talking about value in monetary terms, as in what other people are willing to pay you for it therefore something innovative or cool can indeed be "worthless" in the same way that a beautiful painting is worthless to a thirsty man in the desert.
This is not a question of ethics or fairness, it is supply and demand. You can only pay X people Y amount when starting with K dollars.
I am not trying to be pedantic here but simple rules at large scale produce complex results that may sometimes seem counter intuitive or unfair. Evolution is simple rules applied at scale and it produces results that don't seem quite right but are obviously effective because they survive.
That is not the same thing as saying just beacuse you have no valuable skills you deserve to die of hunger and disease.
They have a duty to act in the best interest of the shareholder. Generally that means not having reduced revenue. This is what most people accept. If shareholders want them to do something different they can let them know.