The decision denying the exemption including reasoning can be found here. I'm not aware of other decisions but maybe they are filed in a separate docket?

Anyway, the regulators did argue that the evidence presented was unsatisfactory. The request was for a broad exemption but there are scenarios where the proposed solution was considered not at the same level of safety, e.g. when line-of-sight to the truck was impeded by road geometry or elevation.

As example, quoting the document linked above in regards of curves:

So Waymo's own study apparently demonstrates that their proposed solution is not as safe as what the regulation requires in that scenario, which is an element necessary to grant the exemption.

True, but people that do awesome things are typically driven by a different kind of motivation than mere "work for hire" and need a project that really engages them.

I bet most of these startups are building yet another slop AI product driven more by marketing than creative ingenuity and willingness to create something "awesome".

"The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies."

That would be a solution, but it's not up to "these people": if the road is public it's on their municipality.

Even in the US I think public roads can be designed for "no entry except for local residents".

While the standardization on USB-C arrived later, the EU started campaigning for standardization and regulation of chargers much earlier, first trying an approach based on voluntary industry adherence, then moving to more strict regulation and first targeting some devices before broadening the scope.

The EU asked the industry to standardize chargers for mobile phones in 2009 and released a corresponding standard in 2010. In 2014 they published a review of the impact of the change, which led to moving towards a mandatory regulation as opposed to voluntary industry commitment.

So I'm not sure whether Apple did the change in 2015 due to EU regulatory pressure, but the EU was definitely already involved in the matter.

The test was instant coffee compared to drip. If you prefer a stronger "espresso-like" coffee taste, it might be very well better to go instant compared to drip as drip coffee tends to be pretty bland.

Doing a comparison to moka it should be a different story, but to be fair there are some quite good instant coffee brands nowadays.

That's exactly the point. The EU aims to give consumers the choice to buy electronic devices without having to also buy an included charger. By mandating compatibility, most consumers at some point would simply not need any additional charger on top of those they already possess.

The reason for the new regulation is exactly to keep it up-to-date in regards of current technology: it's actually going to replace the already-existing regulation from 2019 after the 5-year period review. The review requirement in 5 years was part of the original regulation and will be part of the new regulation too.

There is nothing in the regulation requiring to buy USB adapters: the opposite is true. The regulation mandates compatibility, which means a product has to be able to be charged with a different charger as long as said charger is powerful enough. Furthermore, the EU is moving towards requiring vendors to offer the option to purchase products without an included charger as that might be redundant.

In regards of wireless charging, they were explicitly excluded from the 2019 regulation but they might be included in the new regulation.

While true, it's also potentially risky especially in a high profile case where pretrial coverage can reach a lot of people.

As example, if for some reason part of the evidence publicly disclosed will be ruled inadmissible for trial, jury selection would be significantly impacted as it might become very problematic to find an unbiased jury.

Historically Sony has released a new major console model more or less every 7 years. Since the PS5 was released towards the end of 2020, that makes 2027-2028 for the PS6 a reasonable estimate.

Both the PS5 and PS4 Pro can deliver 4K graphics, but the PS4 Pro has to rely more on checkerboard/upscaling and has to typically target 30 FPS as opposed to 60. The FPS target alone is a huge difference.

The problem for Microsoft is that they are not only the OS vendor, they are also a vendor of paid AV products. Microsoft's AV products make Microsoft a competitor in the software security market against third-party AV vendors.

Due to anti-trust concerns, Microsoft could not really just prevent third-party AV vendors out of the kernel while at the same time keeping said access for their own product, so the decision was either everyone out - themselves included - or everyone in.

Apple didn't have the same anti-trust concerns so for them locking the kernel was much less problematic.

In many European countries an employer is required to provide accident insurance to its employees. In most cases that insurance only covers accidents incurred during work-related activities, but in some countries the insurance also covers accidents incurred privately outside of work.

Not sure about Netherlands but it's pretty common for accident insurance to be through the employer. What is not common is for insurance to cover accidents caused by negligence or recklessness. E.g. if I practice extreme sports and I get an accident doing them, my accident insurance will very likely not fully cover it unless I purchase a dedicated optional coverage plan for them, assuming it's offered.

That might be an issue of regulation. Put in place standardized insurance plans that mainly take into account the risk category of their occupation and partially cover especially risky occupations by public insurance and you'd solve most issues. That way small companies or even individuals would still have access to reasonably priced insurance mitigating their smaller risk pool or reduced bargaining power or especially risky occupations.