Nuclear fission is relatively straightforward so long as you either don't know or don't care about the health risks of radiation. It's just a pile of spicy rocks at the end of the day.
Fusion, on the other hand, requires you to get center-of-sun temperatures and pressures going on to work properly. That usually requires either extremely difficult engineering processes or a fission bomb (and more precise engineering calculations but they're actually reasonably solvable).
I don't know about easy, but hundreds of people have accomplished this as a hobby project using the Farnsworth design, including a handful of very disciplined teenagers.
I always thought fusion was easier than fission, since all* you really need is water and electricity — the problem being that it's currently impossible to get more energy than what you put in
* I am eliding over the fact that building a Farnsworth fusor is still a challenge, but less of a challenge than sourcing, purifying, and enriching uranium certainly.
If you just want any reactions then fission is still way easier, you get more fission from a random bit of uranium ore or in some cases even a banana than from a fusor.
Nuclear fission includes radiative decay, what makes a nuclear reactor rather than a bomb or pile of rock is becoming self sustaining where the reaction is driving the reaction. Fusor’s don’t get there, ITER will as the energy from fusion is driving more fusion reactions.
It’s the difference between rotting wood and a fire.
> But I do have the impression that copyright is kept as long as it is not signed over.
The US has the "work for hire" concept - if an employee creates work as part of their regular duties, their employer is considered both the author and the copyright owner.
For example, if you have employees take photographs of finished products, using company devices, on company time, and as part of their assigned duties, there is essentially zero question that the copyright owner of those photographs is the employer, regardless of whether this is explicitly lined out in an employment agreement.
The employment agreement definitely helps in that it preempts most disputes over what the employer's expectations are, but it is by no means necessary.
It's mostly a distinction without much difference. In jurisdictions were copyright is non-transferable, it will always be with the natural person who created the work. But all these jurisdictions allow transferring exclusive rights of use, so that's what happens instead.
If you want to get really technical, something like "Copyright (c) 2024 CompanyName SE" is literally impossible by the letter of the law in these jurisdictions. Courts of course understand that this is meant to be shorthand for "The exclusive rights to use this work authored in 2024 by an unnamed party are with CompanyName SE".
Unlikely to be legal - you aren't authorized to delete software in use on company computers (regardless of whether management currently knows it is in use), and the software you wrote is likely a "work for hire" done during work hours in the course of your duties (again, regardless of whether management currently knows about the software and how it gets used by front-line workers).
The correct way to handle this is to get ahold of the CTO or a relevant subordinate in their department, and inform them of the shadow-IT situation going on at the warehouse. Most risk-adverse IT executives would have a conniption at the idea that work policies are enacted by business logic code that zero employees understand and can modify.
The applicant pool is not randomly selected, though. The 6-10 randomly selected geniuses are likely all happily and productively employed elsewhere, there's a competitive filter against high-level talent that you have to also get through.
You're over-emphasizing the methods by which these people are price-fixing, rather than the result. The result is a price higher than the market-clearing price that is low enough to find tenancy for all housing. Any scheme to generate excess profit by raising rent above this price is (or ought to be) illegal, whether it's colluding to do price fixing, using some algorithm to price-fix, or monopolizing the market.
The FTC is claiming the exact opposite, basically.
Colluding to fix prices, by any means, is illegal. It is still illegal even if the scheme is only followed by a handful of those who "agreed" to it. It is still illegal if it utterly fails to control the price and thus has no material impact.
It's like trying to scam people. You're not allowed to try to defraud people. It doesn't matter if your scam is so bad that it would cost you more money to execute than you would get out of it, and it doesn't matter if no one engages with your scam at all: what you were doing is still illegal.
FTC would not be interested if the scheme hypothetically somehow had no effect. They said that it is still be illegal even if it is imperfect. Empirical reality still gets a vote, for pragmatic reasons.
Yeah, there's two separate ways of thinking about law in general - mechanically about what the rules say, and politically about how the system ought to be influencing behavior. When the FTC or other prosecutorial/regulatory talks about charging people and alleging wrongdoing, they're making mechanical statements about how what they did violates the law. When they make decisions about who to investigate, charge, and/or fine, they're making political decisions about what constitutes wrongdoing.
> The result is a price higher than the market-clearing price that is low enough to find tenancy for all housing
This is impossible. If all the units are rented then by definition the market clearing price is being charged. The collusion comes when landlords start leaving units vacant.
All store owners should be jailed, then, since the presence of inventory on their shelves is proof of a scheme to generate excess profit by charging higher than market-clearing prices - or it would have sold already.
We only know current inventory. As I write this in early March stores are starting to order their halloween candy (the orders need to be in by somethime in april). You do not know what candy your competitor will order, but this is relavant to sales since you will price match their ads and in turn lower priced candy will sell in greater quantities.
The human visual system regularly fills in what it expects to see in between saccades and outside of focus points. Confabulating missing details is a feature, not a bug.
In economic terms, bond-buying and tax-paying are the exact same thing, real consumption forgone by current workers. IMO, the profligate deficit spending of the baby boomer generation's prime working years is a symptom of massive demand for government bonds rather than the cause of some moral failure by leadership.
Like, it is true that oversupplying government bonds creates some really nasty economic effects, but so does undersupply. The government budget is not a household budget, and it's simply not true that their debts can or should be paid back.
> bond-buying and tax-paying are the exact same thing, real consumption forgone by current workers
No. US Treasuries are one of the most liquid and easy to borrow against assets in the world. When institutions buy Treasuries, they use them as collateral to borrow against with new money created by the banking system. This money is then spent in the real economy. That’s very different from taxes.
Thats because people use the cash in Tether USDT there like their brokerage account: its accumulated from deposit and trading and rarely withdrawn to a bank account.
For example, if Charles Schwab created Schwab USD upon every fiat deposit, the growth and redemption distribution would be similar to Tether. People that can save and populate an investment account do that more than they ever actually withdraw to cause a redemption.
I haven't set it up yet, but youtube channels have RSS feeds so programmatically feeding a list of channels into a watch-later folder should be straightforward.
Fusion, on the other hand, requires you to get center-of-sun temperatures and pressures going on to work properly. That usually requires either extremely difficult engineering processes or a fission bomb (and more precise engineering calculations but they're actually reasonably solvable).