Sure, but due process also defines when and how the rights of the defendant can be exercised. You can still have a due process that preserves your right to see the evidence that does not allow you to see all the evidence yet if you are at the preliminary stage.

I think a prosecutor has some time after arraignment to provide mandatory disclosure. Additional evidence which does not fall under mandatory disclosure needs to be requested through a court motion.

TL;DR: Even if you have a right, you still need to "go through the motion" of the process to successfully exercise it.

I don't think Colorado allows for discovery before the preliminary hearing takes place, which I assume is the hearing she received the summons for. Even at the preliminary hearing, discovery might be very limited.

According to the article they used LuaJIT. I would not be surprised in their use case to get basically equivalent C performance.

They did state the main reason for the better performance: the new implementation has less logic and by using Rust cohesively instead than mixed with C/Lua components there is no need for "translation layers" between languages anymore.

They could have achieved the same by consolidating to C, but of course Rust brings additional important advantages for them.

They are exceptionally well tested, but that doesn't mean they are bug-free. The question is more whether the Rust versions are already more secure or will be more secure in the future. Rust does prevent significant types of exploits, but not all of them.

That the new utils need maturing is evident by Ubuntu's own transition, which led to uncovering a number of issues. Early adopters will always face these kind of maturity issues, but the more early adopters the faster the code matures.

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.