That's not how courts and laws work. This isn't some movie where you have to word things perfectly for a malicious genie. A judge and/or jury would conclude that an "AM radio" necessarily has to be one that actually works in the scenario it is in.

The laws mean what the laws state. The onus falls on you to show proof they broke a rule before they can even get to a jury, and you wouldn't have a proof against them that they broke the rule by not installing an AM radio; when the radio is right there, and they can demonstrate receiving a channel (Any channel).

The regulation stipulates access to AM broadcasts; it does not specify perfect quality audio signal with no electric hum or static, it does not specify WHICH AM broadcasts within what direction and distance, or power,

And it does Not specify kind of gain or receive pattern, directionality, or omnidirectional your antennas should have. Since you are in a vehicle - You are already very limited in your receive capabilities, for example a 15-inch Yagi mounted 30ft in the air pointed at the station you want to receive is a sheer impossibility.

If you try read in extra requirements to the rule that they provide the highest quality, Then you changed the rule from one Not requiring a minimum antenna effectiveness to One that is actually impossible to meet.

The manufacturer would be able to show that the Radio does work.
And you can hear what the speaker is saying on some stations; Even if you cannot hear some stations that could be heard with a proper antenna.

The received audio Can be poor and highly noisy.
The number of stations you can receive May be fewer than someone could hear with a good antenna.

Yes.. It would require an Antenna, but Not an "effective" antenna. If they stuck a stub antenna on the radio with no thought to the design: you would still be able to receive some AM channels -- It would just be fewer channels, and the reception quality would be Poor.

... Effective AM antennas are not exactly small and you have to incorporate one into the design

Nowhere does the requirement say the radio has to come with an Effective antenna. It says AM radio not AM radio antenna.

It just says the vehicle has to come with a radio. They can potentially include a radio in the car that Won't have very good reception, and won't ever give you clean audio due to interference, but it would still meet the definition of an AM radio.

And the owner might just have to bring their own temporary antenna to use it.

The random_key is just a meaningless file name they are trying to Upload to the bucket.

The upload will always be Denied because they are not an Authorized user, but you are charged 1 Request anyways.

This is like having a Shared hosting provider hosting service where One of the billing line items is a Charge for every time you Login to the console, Except they decide to charge every SSH failed login attempt when your username is given as a login as well.

Some poor soul decided to pick "root" as their username, and gets a bill for $10000 due to all the SSH brute forcers out there scanning every IP on the internet.

I guess it's fine.. but you'd better name all your S3 Buckets, and any images you create with max length names that come out of a RNG, so nobody can guess your resource names.

It never was going to be. It's clearly targeted at very high-end users and devs from the very beginning for this unit. Which is obviously an experiment for early adopted.

$5000 is a price tag 90% of the population just can't pay for something like this.

Give it 6 months, a year, maybe 2 years; If the product line doesn't die then there has to be a $1000 model, and eventually a less than $300 version.

There is a certain cache to buying a 'new' thing. Its like buying a new car, you get all the window glossy and what not; maybe its a pride thing

Yes.. Also other things you tend to get with brand new electronics, which aren't necessarily so much with cars:

1. Intact manufacturer warranty. Some Applecare warranties may be transferrable.. most sellers won't bother. Apple may be better than others in this area though; with most products: your second hand buyer will have no rights offered under the manufacturer's limited warranty.

2. Manufacturer Support. You may end up receiving an activation locked device, OR you yourself accidentally lock out your device later and forget the passcode, but the device isn't "broken" you can potentially just be out of luck for lack of software Support. Manufacturers' won't recognize the receipt from a second hand sale as proof of the purchase, ownership, or purchase date to help you, etc.

3. Intact original accessories with no wear or usage of the consumable parts. Not missing the charger or power cord; Not containing rechargeable batteries that barely hold a charge, or Flash storage nearing the end of its life due to past use, not containing unsightly scuffed marks that didn't bother you at first but do ovre time, etc. ...

Does anyone expect an electric device of any OEM to hold its value after being opened?

Generally 50% of the value is lost just by being an open box. Owners may be hoping to keep more, but it's unreasonable to expect much more than that for a >2 month old product.

Outside times when used parts are in unusually high demand - such as the Playstation 5, which never seems to be in stock, so the used prices that should be a couple hundred $$ are instead inflated to more than the sealed brand new from the manufacturer price.

Another important factor is generally the second hand seller has No manufacturer warranty, Thus you are taking a sizable risk not just from that, but from other concerns (the general risks of buying used equipment from other individuals) that only makes sense to save sizable money. Manufacturers usually require a proof of the original purchase these days, and an eBay receipt doesn't qualify - Warranty starts on the first sale and isn't transferrable.

Some US states sell incorporation with secret ownership.

The feds are trying to make that Illegal as well.

It is soon to be mandatory to register with the federal government to tell them who is REALLY behind your secret companies (Not just your secret companies.. all businesses registered with a state now have a new mandate that they register with the Feds the full information for EVERY party with a financial interest in every registered business entity).

Although there is currently a court challenge to the BOI registration. Outside the Alabama circuit it is still the law

On March 1, 2024, a federal district court in Alabama ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, requires businesses to report beneficial ownership information (BOI). The National Small Business Association (NSBA) and a small business owner filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the CTA's BOIR Rule. The court ruled that the CTA exceeds the Constitution's limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress' policy goals

How? This is no different than a bank or brokerage needing the information.

It's not the same at all.

I would liken it more to having a service called a Library. Which is allowed to host books without disclosing the Name and Address of authors. Just as we have VPN, DNS, and Web hosting providers where it is possible to Buy service using an anonymous method of payment and never tell them your address.

Furthermore, We have many of these services ask for information, But it is Not their practice to "Verify" or "Require proof" of information. For example, GoDaddy is not currently going to require you to submit a Photo ID in order to anonymously register a Protest website's domain, where you would have a high risk of reprisal and frivolous legal attacks from the powers that be, etc.

It's pretty darned tyrannical here if the government is going to say that such an anonymous publication service, VPN, or reverse-proxy service (Cloudflare, etc), is not allowed to exist.

A company does not inherently need the buyer's Name, Address, Etc, in order to Provide these services. Most companies use that type of information, but it is completely practical to provide an Anonymous web hosting company, or an Anonymous DNS zone hosting provider, And they ought to be able to.

Brokers don't necessarily need the info either. If you look at crypto markets - there is an analog to a broker that doesn't need the information. You wouldn't need the information to broker an anonymous exchange between two parties on a blockchain.

A broker traditionally executes transactions of major financial importance on your behalf where you are buying or selling real-estate or other property.

They need the information to properly recordate who owns what. The security of your legal ownership to a piece of Real-Estate is only as good as your ability to Proof that the name it's properly Titled to is You.

That same with a phone company or ISP.

A Phone company or ISP needs the information to build a line to your house, and more importantly: In order to send you a bill and hold you accountable if you Don't pay (Very often they deliver a quantity of service before you are billed).

There are Alternative billing models such as Pre-Payment where a Phone company would Not have to have your information. Burner phones are a great example.

Non-competes provide the standing an employer needs to bury a former employee in costs. Costs that are incurred, whether the employers case falls flat on its face or not.

Eh? I thought you were trying to argue the FCC's regulation of non-Competes would fail challenges.

But instead you're going on to explain how no-competes incur costs on the competition over cases without legal basis which supports the FTC position that no-competes are an unfair business practice. Undergoing an insincere legal exchange for the intended purpose of incurring damages and costs on the other party is unlawful; it's called abuse of process.

Any future R led Congress or presidency will roll back this regulation

They'd have to put a law through first, and it's not clear they would.

The FTC has only 1 commissioner whose 7 year term is ending before 2029.
 

Probably a condition for severance agreeements. In general you should Not sign new agreements on the way out, unless there is a benefit tied to the agreement. That benefit can't be your Pay for time and benefits already earned by working though. They might make you sign to pay out an Exit bonus, or cash out some other benefit.

  It's worth pointing out that last year in 2023, the NLRB banned the use of broad NDAs and No-disparagement agreements As a condition for severance contracts, as violating employee rights.

If their former employer sues them even on base of non-enforceable non-compete clauses, they still have to lawyer-up

they don't have to sue.. They'll likely send a Cease and Decist to the new employer who may not consider the merits and simply terminate their new hire. This is the likely outcome if it's a $20/hr worker. The lawyer time is way too expensive, and the new employer can hire somebody else.

The abuser can paper a ton of letters over the mere worry and break the employee without ever filing a single lawsuit.

The only way you win is if the new employer has your back. In this case, they might keep you on and help you get legal assistance in that area.

I predict this will die a violent death in US courts.

Much doubt about that one I would say. Not unless they are prepared to and can prove Non-Competes prevented by the rule cannot be considered Unfair under Competition/Antitrust law and the FTC act in the US. I would eagerly await their Proof that these agreements are actually reasonably necessary to secure a justifiable legitimate pro-competitive objective that's within the public interest. If There is an alternative available, and the companies did Not have to use a no-compete, then they ought to lose any challenge. The FTC is smart to exclude executives on this one. You're going to be hard-pressed to find a legitimate pro-competitive reason that 100% of the no-compete restriction is necessary On an individual employee who is not an executive or business owner -- for knowledge workers, etc, a NDA, or a very fine-grained agreement specific to the job assignment, and the specific info you will have access to, should be sufficient most of the time, And the broad nocompetes have a high chance of coming back as unjustifiable/unfair from any court.

Noncompetes are not much very well liked by the courts when employers try to use them. Non-competes are an example of restraint of trade agreements. Which makes the validity of all such agreements dubious. The common law requires the Non-compete restriction would have to be reasonably necessary in the protection of a legitimate pro competitive interest under antitrust laws -- the supreme court has rejected the notion that "keeping a level playing field" b/w competitors, etc, is a legitimate justification; the no-compete agreements would have to have some specificity, and the agreement would be invalid if it goes against public policy. The FTC Act passed by congress gives the FTC the authority to weigh the matter of public interest and set the public policy, and it falls under the executive branch of government's discretion when it comes to which type of incidents they are enforcing against as Unfair business practices.

The courts will generally defer to the regulator.

If the Agencies conclude that the restraint has, or is likely to have, an anticompetitive effect, they will consider whether it is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive efficiencies. If the restraint is reasonably necessary, the Agencies will balance the procompetitive efficiencies and the anticompetitive effects to determine the probable net effect on competition in each relevant market

Any agreement is unlawful (under the rule of reason) if its restrictive effect on competition is not reasonably necessary to achieving a "legitimate procompetitive objective, i.e., an interest in serving consumers through lowering costs, improving products, etc." (National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 691, 98 S. Ct. 1355, 55 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1978).)

United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 163 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2001

This is an area where the legislation passed by congress gives the FTC the explicit power to interpret a Broad law which Forbids all unfair business practices. Therefore, there is a very high chance they would survive challenges in setting a rule about business practices.

If Non-Competes are an Unfair business practice, then they were always illegal for employers to present to employees and enforce: The FTC simply had not yet recognized that fact yet, nor taken any enforcement actions, as the code was not yet interpreted the meaning of the law to preclude the practice.