The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is valid only the US, yet there's webistes like these (generally speaking) all over the world without them being sued all the time.
I have no idea how you could arrive at the conclusion that only authoritarians and idiots would oppose the DMCA, which is factually often abused to censor important speech like criticism under the guise of protecting intellectual property from being infringed upon.

(Not arguing against what you said, just need to reply to someone)

The problem with going by what criminals benefit from, as an imperative when deciding what not to do, is that we'd likely end up doing very little. Most if not all liberties can also be exploited for criminal purposes.

It's the 5th image for me using 3 different google accounts on my PC.
Incognito Chrome puts it as the 6th. Incognito Firefox 5th. Incognito Edge 5th.
Even on my Chinese phone it's the 5th image both in the normal Chrome browser and in incognito mode.

Seems fairly consistent given that I deliberately use those google accounts for different things.

But now the big HOWEVER. All of the results seem to come from 404Media.co, specifically from the article that claims this image to be the first google result. Putting on my tin-foil hat, I smell algorithm manipulation in an attempt of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thinking back, I believe we've had these yellow LEDs for a long time already as "indicator" type LEDs on instruments or control panels or similar things.
I was thrown off by the "amber" orange ones, which are made from GaAsP without the Nitrogen doping, being the one's suggested by astronomers and environmentalist to reduce light pollution even further by operating in the range between 590nm to 625nm. Since I hadn't seen those before being widely used, I presumed that there must be some considerable downside to them.

But even these already seem to be widely available for not much higher prices than comparable other colors. Though some of the examples that I've seen seem to use orange phosphors implying that they still have a blue/UV LED underneath, which then would also require to filter whater of those wavelengths leak through.
Like this one here https://www.amazon.com/Melphan... (not intended to be advertisement, just a reference) has what looks like an orange phosphor or at least an orange diffuser in front of it. A genuine GaAsP wouldn't need that "orange" filter.
Investigating further, I found a data sheet for the "3014 LED" that are used in there.
https://lumileds.com/wp-conten... on page "5 (6 of 25)" (according to the PDF reader) is a spectral power distribution showing a big peaks around 450nm (blue). This is something that would have to be avoided.

I'll look further into it, because now I want to buy one of those, but need to find the right type first.

Addition (again not disputing anything):
I looked it up and apparently you can make yellow yellow with a spectrum from 585nm to 595nm with Gallium Arsenide Phosphide doped with Nitrogen.

The spectrum of low pressure sodium, which according to the internet peaks around 589nm, could be decently enough approximated with the GaAsP:N LED.

No idea about the manufacturing costs though, because we'd need to produce these at large scales to light our cities and roads with them. But I do remember that at least during my university time Gallium Arsenide photovoltaics were known to be the higher efficiency expensive ones, that you'd not use for terrestrial applications but would put on satellites, because there mass and volume is more expensive real estate than for stationary application on Earth.

No objections to anything there.
But I get the feeling that we're still talking past each other, so I'm trying to rephrase again.

We could make LED based lights that combine the "best of both wordls" of sodium vapor in terms of light pollution because the spectrum you get out of LED lighting technology is highly tunable, and LED not needing warm up, and also being a bit more energy efficient.

All the technology is already here and available. Besides of having to overcome ideological issues, as mentioned before, manufacturing costs are probably still fairly high since we haven't had mass production going for this specific goal yet.
But reading some other comments, there seem to be some companies who are already working towards that goal with what they label "amber color" LEDs to specifically reduce light pollution.

Seems like we're on the track to solving this particular issue at least. Unless we don't fuck that up for whatever illogical reasons, I don't see any conundrum here.

What I'm trying to get across is that we don't have to use "white LEDs" in the first place.
Before the blue LED was invented in 1989, we didn't even have white LEDs.

I note this because the usual argument from anti-LEDers back in the day used to be that the spectrum from LEDs is too monochromatic and unnatural, while incandescent light is more closer to the spectrum that fire creates or how sunlight scatters through the atmosphere during sunset/sunrise, which which humans have evolved for millions of years.

This was before those phosphor white LEDs were widely introduced, which created a wider spectrum. And today we complain about the spectrum being too wide?

Besides of the theoretical possibility to find a combination of semiconductors with a band gap that fits the spectrum of sodium vapor lamps (which I'm not sure what combination that is) we also have "quantum dot" materials which can have their fluorescent properties matched and be excited by a monochromatic blue/UV LED, similar to the phosphor white LEDs (but with a different underlying physical principle).

I've been reading such weird comments around here.
People seem to already have forgotten that LEDs as descrete electronic devices naturally have a fairly narrow spectrum, that is their CRI also sucks.

The "white LEDs" that we're using today usually combine a number of monochromatic LEDs to make the resulting light appear "white" to the primate eye, or we use a monochromatic blue/UV LED to excite a phosor which then scatters the blue/UV over a wider range in the visible spectrum.

Now I'm not exactly sure what kind of combination of semiconductors you'd need to produce the spectrum of sodium vapor lamps, but theoretically it wouldn't be that difficult to go back to some more monochromatic street lighting.
We could try to approximate what sodium vapor lamps did for us, or whatever else would turn out to be the most practicable. Doing just some quick google search, there already seems to be plenty of approaches, which would require widespread implementation.
Of course the problem there would be to convince politicians to for once listen to science, and of course all the people who act like LEDs are of the devil and can't possibly be used for anything good.

It also affects a bunch of nocturnal animals in negative ways that we can't easily predict on paper.
While a complete elimination of light pollution is probably not feasible, we should definitely work on illuminating only the places that are necessary, keeping "leakage" as low as possible.

There's a lot of sad parts about this situation where a lot of people seem to fail to comprehend what's going on.
I'm just waiting until someone links LED usage to autism, because they saw a diagram somewhere that correlates LED use with autism diagnosis.

for those:

less regulated industries (clothing, software, toys) drop costs dramatically over time

Industries that get as close to slavery as you can get in modern times.
You get clothes that are produced by prisoners or people in sweatshops. Because there's plenty of people to exploit.
You get software from companies that crunch young developers into burnouts. Fortunately for them there's plenty of junior developers to exploit.
Same story with toys which are produced by prisoners or under terrible conditions for workers in countries where a human's life isn't worth a lot.

I wouldn't use these race to the bottom industries as a good example of healthy competition that can be accomplished by lack of regulation.
Now even disregarding all the human rights things for a moment, I don't see how such an approach would work for health care or education for example. Especially in health care where mistakes can have grave consequences.

What do I want as a developer? People being a bit more cautious with threats of violence.
Just because reality, which I try to stick to, does not correlate well with your head-canon, does not entitle you to threaten me.

You can disagree with my product and service and say that you won't pay money unless XYZ is done. That is your protected right. But you do not get to threaten me with violence to get XYZ done. That's what terrorists do.

I becomes clearer what Loeb means if you consider context:

It's used as an excuse for people who don't want to deal with an exciting possibility. They don't seek the evidence and they argue, "Well, we don't have any evidence...."

Loeb does not seem to understand the significance of burden of proof in the sciences to begin with. He does not seem to comprehend that the one who makes a claim needs to back it up by evidence in order to validate it and that you can't just go on "hasn't been proven wrong yet" without also a lot of evidence backing it up. Loeb seems to think that he's entitled to others, especially those that doubt to defeat themselves, to do his work for him.

I make plugins/subsystems that I sell to other developers.
The rules there are a bit different. On the market place, Epic sees everytransactions anyway and takes their cut whether I want it or not. And I'm not sure how they would check what I sell "under the counter" as a contractor. But as I said, if Epic was ever to make terms more unfavourable, I have no choice to play along or lose access to the market place which is usually where most money from freelancing does come from.

If push comes to shove, I'll give Godot a look. But since I feel fairly at home with C/C++ derivatives my first choice would probably still be Open 3D Engine.
Of course ultimately it depends on where the money is. Godot seems to have some future where a healthy market place could develop. Open 3D Engine's future remains to be seen. Most people I've spoken to that have worked with CryEngine derivatives didn't speak favourably of them.

While it is technically true that if you publish on EGS that Epic doesn't take the usual 5% cut if your gross revenue goes beyond $1M, but since Epic still takes the regular EGS cut callting it "actually free" seems misleading.
So since if you publish on EGS it'll be 11%, while if you publish on Steam, GOG or whatever else, it will be their fee +5%, there's no option that'll let you avoid paying at least that 5% cut unless you manage to stay below that $1M revenue.

You could theoretically go lower than that 11% by distributing it yourself, just having to pay that 5% cut, but given the cost of doing that, the other options are likely still leaving you with more money in your pockets.