Paying for a report to undercut legislation that reduces profits to the payer is a standard business tactic.

Any Insights and Conclusions that do not further the goals of the payer would run counter to the business interests of both the report producer and the payer.

Read the stated goals of the legislation in the legislation. They are far more expansive than this report's tiny swath of scope:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/...

With a report so narrowly constructed, it's a wonder there aren't more that are also picked up my MacRumors or any other apple mouthpiece outlet.

You'd think a guy who can buy up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Kauai could, ya know, get a permit from the city.

It isn't like he wasn't concurrently spending millions on real estate lawyers at that same time, so stop your apologizing for the guy. He can afford the pros.

Or you could use it as a proxy of economic capacity, which is what it looks like is happening here.

Couple that with the slope of the line and the question about overtaking today or tomorrow or yesterday is ridiculous. Which line? You choose. Find one that refutes it.

At least humans eat the watermelons? Get a load of alfalfa growing nearby--food for cows and horses, mainly.

What proportion of the population thinks they need to double-check *everything* an AI chatbot tells them? They're being sold "artificial intelligence" and receiving a reasonable looking product. If they had to verify every single detail what would be the point of using the service?

It ain't "stupid", it's "average human".

I'm asserting that no researcher would undertake a study on so small a question as to document even a single "case of a person becoming sick or dying from microplastics from IV tubes".

Sure, sure--keep telling yourself there isn't a meaningful difference between, say, artheriosclerosis due to molecule-by-molecule deposition and an agglomeration of microplastics.

It's like saying there isn't a difference in your sewer pipes between decades of buildup from minerals and that event you're out finding the plunger for.

"there hasn't been a single documented case of a person becoming sick or dying from microplastics from IV tubes"

Ha! No self-respecting researcher would ever attempt to document this, nor get funding to do so. It's like a drop in the bucket for exposures, and once the particle size is small enough they pass through cell membranes and (gasp!) into the bloodstream.

Otherwise, thanks for the muddled lesson in harm reduction.

Since a main concern is about cellular and biological uptake, how about identifying the number of adult humans it would take to fill each cell with one nanoplastic particle each? Or figure out how much plastic an average cell can hold and tell us how many average adult humans we need to pack full?

Ok, then what comes next?

Someone trying to convince us that one particle of today's microplastics will be a thousand particles of nanoplastics in a few years?

In respected journals, peer review is currently the best thing out there. Show us an alternative.

The flip side is non-peer-reviewed journals. We know how valuable that is.

"thrown them into bankruptcy"? Not even close. That's the point AC.

Apple has ~$30 Billion USD in Cash. Operating Expenses of ~$15 Billion.

You should start hearing things more often. Apple is nearer to being net-cash neutral (i.e cash=debt) than debts>ability to pay debts. Where "nearer" is not even in the same novel, let alone the same sentence.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom...

"Nuclear" is not really a good description for a decade(s) long anti-trust case.

I've nearly already fallen asleep at the possibility this amazing option may get exercised.

Pretty much taken into account in the doc.

Obviously, you haven't looked at the document.

Try searching up:
ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO INCOHERENT VISIBLE AND INFRARED RADIATION

I believe that LIDAR wavelengths mean that the eyeball damage concerns are about thermal damage of the cornea and near-infrared thermal damage of the crystalline lens. Risk assessments are made and certifications are given.

Anyone know that process or considerations as applied to automobiles?

Eyeballs aren't camera sensors, but I also would not knowingly stare into a LIDAR unit in the dark, for a long time.