The phones get larger and the UI gets less information dense every release. More padding, more offsets, more dead space.

Yeah, this is what bothers too much. Retina displays for low density content? We could've remained at 800x600.

I'd pay good money for a small phone with nothing but a unix terminal

Termux on Android. Lots of hardware choices.

Apple needs all that space so that the aesthetic can fit in.

Except this is not how medical regulation has worked in the US. This particularly is a new and stricter standard required for this particular vaccine. Even the new Trump policies for COVID vaccines now specifically requires a placebo -- comparison against standard-of-care would not be accepted.

Huh? The FDA's main guidance document on this topic, issued in 2007 with no major overhaul since [0], states that comparative efficacy or effectiveness data is valuable when:

- The comparator vaccine is indicated for the same population.

- The comparator has existing clinical effectiveness data.

In other words, the trial design should use a benchmark that makes sense given what doctors and guidelines actually recommend today. For older adults, evidence over the past 15+ years has shown that enhanced flu vaccines often provide better protection than standard-dose ones. The study used standard-dose vaccines as far as we can see.

The only oddity here is that the FDA apparently approved the study previously

[0] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...

The document describes proof of effectiveness as supported by demonstrating "non inferiority to... a US licensed product". So yes, a (licensed) benchmark, but I see no references to a requirement for only testing against the best standard of care. It's a separate question about whether it should be though, and the cfr is quite vague throughout, so I would probably expect this isn't an illegal move (assuming arbitrary and capricious isn't held by a court), but I don't see it supported by precedent.

Well, that's not 'mostly done'

The point is that it's a technical criteria that allows you to exclude American production from Europe. It's just protectionism.

You say economics instead of emotion, but your last sentence is emotion. If capex is your concern, explain the purpose of canceling an almost-complete farm. If energy breakevens are your concern, explain how this breakevens compares against, e.g. oil liquids.

In their defense, if "things get bad", they probably lose their job and will be forced to leave. It's hard to put down permanent roots if you can be kicked out in 90 days.

I had the same thought as GP though, thought it was very clever.

There have been numerous issues in the past with 'dead' satellites waking back up and activating transmitters again, generally making a mess of the spectrum. Some satellites have pyro-fuses on the power lines from the solar arrays that are fired during passivation to make absolutely sure that the sat doesn't ever recharge and wakeup.

"significant" is doing a lot of work here. spaceX appears to have spent ~$10B on development and infrastructure for Starship so far. NASA has been invoiced for ~50% of their $2.9B contract, so the taxpayer has paid ~15%.

I don't know about the broader point the GP is making, but 15% funding is significant by most measures.